Who Do You Think You Are?

[Pabmusic]

is bbm a close relative ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-28825653

In fact we all are much closer than we might think:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/07/charlemagnes-dna-and-our-universal-royalty/

Basically, if we are of European stock and if Richard III has any descendants at all, then we're probably all his descendants.

[BBMmk2]

But I must say that I can say that I have links with RIII, looking at the family tree of the time, distantly(I think)

[vinteuil]

But I must say that I can say that I have links with RIII, looking at the family tree of the time, distantly(I think)

... but, BBM, Pabmusic has pointed out that most of us* are probably descendants of Richard III -

In fact we all are much closer than we might think:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic....ersal-royalty/.

Basically, if we are of European stock and if Richard III has any descendants at all, then we're probably all his descendants.

* tho' probably not Mrs Pabmusic

[John Wright]

You're also a very distant relative of Geoffrey Chaucer (who ended up as JofG's brother-in-law) which for my money is worth more than all of these royals put together!

When we talk of ancestry and relatives we should be talking about bloodline. If Chaucer was JoG's brother in law, how is bbm 'related'?

[french frank]

If Chaucer was JoG's brother in law, how is bbm 'related'?

Very distantly - as ferney said

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Very distantly - as ferney said

[ardcarp]

As I think I've mentioned in the past, the maths of heredity are rather puzzling. One has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 ggps, 16 gggps...and it's a bit like doubling the rice grains on the chess-board. After a few generations you have enough ancestors to be related to everyone who ever lived, so tracing yourself back to a historic figure is more a question of how you do the tracing. For instance in my own family, my sister (who is keen on this sort of thing) found ourselves linked to the Lords St Levan of Cornwall...but also to a knife-grinder in Aston who died in the workhouse. Most (not me) prefer to exclude the less heroic from their family escutcheons. In the RIII genetic testing, they traced people along the maternal bloodline to get mitochondrial DNA. They found a couple of candidates...but there must be many more out there.

[Pabmusic]

As I think I've mentioned in the past, the maths of heredity are rather puzzling. One has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 ggps, 16 gggps...and it's a bit like doubling the rice grains on the chess-board. After a few generations you have enough ancestors to be related to everyone who ever lived...

Yes, but the chessboard analogy breaks down at the point that you discover you have more direct ancestors than the total number of humans there has ever been. We assume that each line is distinct from the others. The thing we miss easily is that very (very) many of our ancestors were the result of interbreedings (albeit not close ones usually) so that ancestors in one line were also ancestors in other lines. At that rate, you find that, beyond a certain point - no more than 500 years - pretty well all your ancestors were related to each other.

[ardcarp]

I suspected something of the sort......

I am much taken by Dawkins assertion (in Rivers out of Eden) that everyone alive today can be traced back to a single female, 'a mitochondrial Eve'. This does not support the Biblical narrative, of course, because .....well, Wiki explains it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

[doversoul1]

This is a genuine question and not by any means a critical comment but why do people want to find out about who their ancestors were? I can see why people are interested in knowing what their great grandparents were like or did but ancestors going back centuries?

Is there any similarity to the thoughts about who our ‘collective’ ancestors were in cultural or other aspects?

[french frank]

why do people want to find out about who their ancestors were? I can see why people are interested in knowing what their great grandparents were like or did but ancestors going back centuries?

It can be 'history with personal interest'. My mother explored her family history and it was fascinating to see how 19th-c. boot manufacturers went back to 18th-c. coal miners and then back to 16th-c. farmers, following social developments in the area; and then to investigate each era and its industries. I don't think she had a 'collectivist' interest in her roots

[Ockeghem's Razor]

It can be 'history with personal interest'.

That is exactly what it became for me. I learned a great deal about the Scottish working class, especially the miners of whom I have ten generations on my mother's side. Such Scottish history as we got at school in the 50s concerned itself with the usual suspects in the House of Stewart so this was all new to me and a real eye-opener (Scottish miners were serfs from the early 1600s to 1799, for instance.)

[ardcarp]

This is a genuine question and not by any means a critical comment but why do people want to find out about who their ancestors were?

I agree, dovers, and don't see the attraction personally. But I know some people get very gripped by it and spend time looking at church registers and other documents, many of which are now available online. And there are companies that claim to be able to do it for you. My point it that DIY researchers can choose which line of heredity they take, and generally prefer to be related to historical figures of importance or to the aristocracy. I am more impressed, as a member of the proud proletariat, that we have a relly who invented and patented the free-wheel on a bicycle.

[doversoul1]

ff

… following social developments in the area; and then to investigate each era and its industries.

OR

I learned a great deal about the Scottish working class

By ‘collective ancestors’, I meant these things, in other words, cultural and historical backgrounds rather than simply who one’s ancestors were (i.e. names and jobs / status etc.). If that’s the case, is tracing one’s family more a means than the end in itself? But then can you not just learn these histories without connecting to your own family? Or does the link to your family make it so much more significant?

As I said, these are genuine questions, as I simply cannot have any sense of personal link with individuals beyond the people about whom I have heard from living members of my family. Still I see that this is one way of finding out about how people lived, which is always interesting.

However, as ardcarp says, I seem to hear people talk more about who their ancestors were and not so much about ‘history with personal interest’. I am intrigued by the interest in the former.

[french frank]

Or does the link to your family make it so much more significant?

Much more significant . I remember the bits and pieces that my grandfather told me about his mother. It was curiosity that led me to track down the cottage where she had lived with her farmer father and her mother, and to match it up with pencil scrawlings on 'Grace's box' - the wooden travelling trunk in which she carried all her belongings from Anglesey to England. Did she board the train at the newly opened station? We have a Welsh Bible that was probably her mother's, as my grandfather told me she didn't speak English. It's all part of who I am. But it interests you, or it doesn't.