General Royal Genealogical questions

[NotHRH]

everyone related to everyone else? only if you consider species history, rather than family history, ie genealogy which i what we are discussing. as such, I reject the claim

I do not understand your point - you obviously don't understand genealogy. What "claim" are you rejecting? Charlemagne was King of the Franks about 1000 AD. He had 20+ children - so now everyone in the Western hemisphere is considered a descendant of Charlemagne. The gene for blue eyes actually was a mutation, before the mutation occurred everybody had brown eyes. But because a person needs two genes for blue eyes to express that trait, it was probably several generations down before a male, with one gene for blue eyes and one for brown eyes, and a female, with one gene for blue eyes and one for brown eyes also, produced offspring with blue eyes. So it is all people with blue eyes have probably have a common ancestor. If everybody alive today could trace their ancestry back 1000 years, there would definitely be serious overlapping of ancestors - there were not that enough people living then to for everybody alive today to not have had overlapping of ancestors. You can believe whatever you want but I have read about this subject (and no, I am NOT an authority on the subject) and educated myself somewhat about this subject. To take you seriously, you would need to make sense and your opinions do not concur with scientific data about genealogy, which is ultimately about our species. Your random opinions do nothing to prove a point you are trying to make.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I have been working very hard to put together our family tree and I was excited to first see William the Conqueror, but as I continued I found I am related to Queen Elizabeth II. Very distant 22nd cousin removed 2X but still interesting! I can't wrap my head around 22nd cousin 2x removed. If someone can explain I would appreciate it. Do we even share the same blood this far along?

I think your wording is not correct. You are not related to Queen Elizabeth II. You share a common ancestor. That is not the same.

The children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II are related to her but share a common ancestor with you. I hope this has made the difference clear.

 

[Lee-Z]

According to this definition:
http://www.audioenglish.org/dictionary/related.htm
"indirect" or "collateral" related
(but that's related too )

 

[Osipi]

I do not understand your point - you obviously don't understand genealogy. What "claim" are you rejecting? Charlemagne was King of the Franks about 1000 AD. He had 20+ children - so now everyone in the Western hemisphere is considered a descendant of Charlemagne. The gene for blue eyes actually was a mutation, before the mutation occurred everybody had brown eyes. But because a person needs two genes for blue eyes to express that trait, it was probably several generations down before a male, with one gene for blue eyes and one for brown eyes, and a female, with one gene for blue eyes and one for brown eyes also, produced offspring with blue eyes. So it is all people with blue eyes have probably have a common ancestor. If everybody alive today could trace their ancestry back 1000 years, there would definitely be serious overlapping of ancestors - there were not that enough people living then to for everybody alive today to not have had overlapping of ancestors. You can believe whatever you want but I have read about this subject (and no, I am NOT an authority on the subject) and educated myself somewhat about this subject. To take you seriously, you would need to make sense and your opinions do not concur with scientific data about genealogy, which is ultimately about our species. Your random opinions do nothing to prove a point you are trying to make.

Another aspect to take into consideration also along the lines that many people of the Western hemisphere could trace their ancestry back to Charlemagne and/or other members of the aristocracy and royal families of England can be attributed to events such as times of famine and pandemics of the black death in 1348-1350 and the great plague of 1665-1666. These events culled the population severely and it stands to reason that it would be that the higher classes of wealth and status that had the resources to remain healthier with a better diet and able to isolate themselves from the masses if needed, would have a better chance of surviving and producing offspring. The black death and the great plague were the two major pandemics but there were also other outbreaks. From the Museum of London:

"A major outbreak of the disease struck roughly every 20-30 years, killing around 20% of London’s population each time. There were lesser outbreaks in-between the major ones and sometimes the disease could continue for several years in a less serious form."

http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/files/5613/7053/1233/London_plagues_13481665.pdf

 

[WarHiker]

Your terminology is messed up. As cousins he is indeed related (If good lineage is correct). He is not directly related, and that is the difference.

 

[Novalis]

Teutonic Knights - Fraud

Scam website:
Teutonic Order - Deutscher Orden - German Order - 1190

This fraudulent Imperial Teutonic Order is not a representative of the Teutonic Order based in Vienna, Austria, and Bad Mergentheim, Germany.

The legitimate sites:
Deutscher Orden: Brüder und Schwestern vom Deutschen Haus St. Mariens in Jerusalem - Welcome to the website of the Teutonic Order
Deutscher Orden - Deutsche Brüderprovinz

Head of the Teutonic Knights, Vienna, Austria
Deutscher Orden: Brüder und Schwestern vom Deutschen Haus St. Mariens in Jerusalem - Hochmeisteramt

Museum of the Teutonic Knights
Deutschordensmuseum Bad Mergentheim: Impressum

 

[Hallsteinn]

I have read that everyone in the world are at least 14th cousins. As far as being DNA/blood related to a 22nd cousin, probably neither. Think of your maternal grandparents; let us assume your mother inherited 50% of her DNA from each of her parents. At your conception, she passed on to you ONLY those genes that she had inherited from her father. So at that point you actually have none of your grandmother's DNA. So a person can be descended or related to a person and the both of you actually do not have any genes/DNA in common. This is an oversimplified version, but it is entirely possible.

Absolutely not. Please, think about it for a second. People in most parts of Africa haven't had sexual contact with people of another background since we left Africa. This goes for most other places too, someone in South East Asia, for example, might be related to a European person 30.000 years ago, which is far, far, far more distant than a 14th cousin.

On topic: Elizabeth is my 10th cousin thrice removed

 

[NotHRH]

Absolutely not. Please, think about it for a second. People in most parts of Africa haven't had sexual contact with people of another background since we left Africa. This goes for most other places too, someone in South East Asia, for example, might be related to a European person 30.000 years ago, which is far, far, far more distant than a 14th cousin.

On topic: Elizabeth is my 10th cousin thrice removed

http://www.geni.com/discussions/104261?by_or_about=6000000007278581048 This can explain the concept better than I can

 

[NotHRH]

I do not understand your point - you obviously don't understand genealogy. What "claim" are you rejecting? Charlemagne was King of the Franks about 1000 AD. He had 20+ children - so now everyone in the Western hemisphere is considered a descendant of Charlemagne. The gene for blue eyes actually was a mutation, before the mutation occurred everybody had brown eyes. But because a person needs two genes for blue eyes to express that trait, it was probably several generations down before a male, with one gene for blue eyes and one for brown eyes, and a female, with one gene for blue eyes and one for brown eyes also, produced offspring with blue eyes. So it is all people with blue eyes have probably have a common ancestor. If everybody alive today could trace their ancestry back 1000 years, there would definitely be serious overlapping of ancestors - there were not that enough people living then to for everybody alive today to not have had overlapping of ancestors. You can believe whatever you want but I have read about this subject (and no, I am NOT an authority on the subject) and educated myself somewhat about this subject. To take you seriously, you would need to make sense and your opinions do not concur with scientific data about genealogy, which is ultimately about our species. Your random opinions do nothing to prove a point you are trying to make.

Link to blue eye gene common ancestor: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

 

[Hallsteinn]

Link to blue eye gene common ancestor: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

I am fully aware of all of this. First of all, 10.000 years isn't even close to 14 generations, and it's still around the European region. But we don't have to argue forever about this.

 

[Lee-Z]

First of all, 10.000 years isn't even close to 14 generations, and it's still around the European region.

You are right, maybe to add a little perspective for people who don't interest themselves in genealogy and stuff: in my family tree, 14 generations bring me back to about the mid to late 16th century (and in my case, several of them living in the same area where i was born, give or take ca. 50 km)

 

[Hallsteinn]

You are right, maybe to add a little perspective for people who don't interest themselves in genealogy and stuff: in my family tree, 14 generations bring me back to about the mid to late 16th century (and in my case, several of them living in the same area where i was born, give or take ca. 50 km)

Exactly How far back have you been able to trace your family? Have you found ancestors outside of the Netherlands, if so, where and when?

 

[Osipi]

I find this conversation and the information on genetics fascinating to read.

Of course, being adopted, my family tree begins with me and if someone shakes it and nuts fall out, its all my doing. If I had the money to spare though, I'd love to have my DNA tested just because I can.

 

[NotHRH]

I am fully aware of all of this. First of all, 10.000 years isn't even close to 14 generations, and it's still around the European region. But we don't have to argue forever about this.

http://www.geni.com/discussions/104261?by_or_about=6000000007278581048 This can explain the concept better than I can
Not arguing - just information that may be helpful to you to understand - you must have missed this link and thought I would bring it to your attention

 

[NotHRH]

I find this conversation and the information on genetics fascinating to read.

Of course, being adopted, my family tree begins with me and if someone shakes it and nuts fall out, its all my doing. If I had the money to spare though, I'd love to have my DNA tested just because I can.

Ancestry.com offers this service. Its not expensive either. You might research the accuracies of the results 1st though.

 

[Osipi]

Ancestry.com offers this service. Its not expensive either. You might research the accuracies of the results 1st though.

I pretty much live in the perpetual state of not having a down payment on a free lunch these days. There'd be no way to research the accuracy of the results as I really have absolutely nothing to go by. I just sounds like something interesting to do and know.

 

[Hallsteinn]

I pretty much live in the perpetual state of not having a down payment on a free lunch these days. There'd be no way to research the accuracy of the results as I really have absolutely nothing to go by. I just sounds like something interesting to do and know.

I know a lot of genetics and these companies, and I just need to tell you that you need to learn how to interpret the results you get. AncestryDNA and 23andme (the biggest companies) give you basically the same results, but they label it under different populations, so it looks different. For example, if you're from the Balkans, AncestryDNA says you're a mix of South Europeans and East Europeans (which is true), while 23andme simply gives you a reference group which is called the Balkans. That means that the Balkans group is constructed by both E Euro and S Euro. I'm in a hurry and this sounds very messy, but my point is, that you can't just accept the results you get as absolute truth, you need to some calculations in order to pin point your ancestry.

 

[Osipi]

I know a lot of genetics and these companies, and I just need to tell you that you need to learn how to interpret the results you get. AncestryDNA and 23andme (the biggest companies) give you basically the same results, but they label it under different populations, so it looks different. For example, if you're from the Balkans, AncestryDNA says you're a mix of South Europeans and East Europeans (which is true), while 23andme simply gives you a reference group which is called the Balkans. That means that the Balkans group is constructed by both E Euro and S Euro. I'm in a hurry and this sounds very messy, but my point is, that you can't just accept the results you get as absolute truth, you need to some calculations in order to pin point your ancestry.

Thank you so much for your explanation. Its all so very interesting especially when you get into royal families that have lineages going back centuries and centuries.

 

[Hallsteinn]

I think your wording is not correct. You are not related to Queen Elizabeth II. You share a common ancestor. That is not the same.

The children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II are related to her but share a common ancestor with you. I hope this has made the difference clear.

That's the same thing. They are related to one another, just extremely, extremely, extremely distantly.

 

[Osipi]

Maybe the best test to find out if you are related to someone or just have a common ancestor would be the test of asking "family" for a loan of a dollar. If they know you and like you and give you the dollar, you're related. If they wonder who the heck you are and back off scowling, you have a common ancestor somewhere.


(ducks and runs for cover)

 

[SnowBirds]

So very well said and right now, money always talks among family and very loudly......

 

[HollyDolly]

The order still exists as a religious order in the Catholic Church so the later two websites you list are indeed correct. The first one not sure if its a fraud or not or rather some tribute page to the order.

 

[nybvf]

Descendants of Prince Philipp of Liechtenstein

I have long been interested in the house of Liechtenstein, and recently I was refreshing myself about Prince Philipp. I'm reading that he has three sons named Alexander (b.1972), Wenzeslaus (b.1974), and Rudolf (b.1975). However I clearly remember reading that he had a daughter, although I can find no mention of her now. Does anyone know of her? Thank you all.

 

[sjetajiem]

He has three sons
Alexander married to Astrid Kohl. They have a daughter Theodora
Wenzeslaus is single
Rudolf married Tilsim Tanberk. They have twins, a daughter Laetitia and a son Karl Ludwig
In 2015 Rudolf and Tilsim lost a daughter Alienor, 13 months old

 

[Osipi]

Check this out. It makes sense to me.

"All Europeans are descended from exactly the same people, and not that long ago. Everyone alive in the tenth century who left descendants is the ancestor of every living European today, including Charlemagne, and his children Drogo, Pippin, and, of course, not forgetting Hugh."

I find this amusing as no one really comes forth and claims they're from a long line of seafarers or farmers or in ages past, serfs. Everyone wants to be "connected to royalty". I'm wondering why.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford

 

[MaiaMia_53]

It's just that there were way fewer people.on the planet hundreds and thousands of years ago. So yes, there does exist numerous connections to royalty, but not always direct line connections. Meghan's is a direct line connection.

And once again, there are few traceable opportunites to prove these ancestral connections.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The House of Windsor is also of German origin (the British branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) as is also the royal House of Belgium. Philip belonged to the Greek branch of his house, which in turn descended from the Danish branch. It would be quite a stretch to call either one "German".

One may not call them German, as they reign in other lands outside Germany, but when a German dynasty reigns in Denmark or Greece and is for centuries intermarried almost exclusively with other German dynasties, what would you say about the ancestry of this person? Well, German one. And it's not a shame to acknowledge that. Out of Prince Philip's 128 nearest ancestors, only 3 didn't belong to a German dynasty.

To make a comparison, the Bourbons are of French origin, but the Spanish Bourbons or the Italian Bourbons are not normally considered French.

I agree. But one thing is to be "considered" and the other is what it really is. They can consider themselves everything they want, but that doesn't change the fact that they are of French origin who married only to other French or German dynasties. If I live for years in Nigeria I can consider myself Nigerian, but the fact is that I am not, no matter how much I like it.

One can easily say that King Felipe is Spanish as he is the King of Spain whose ancestors also reigned in Spain, but out of his 128 nearest ancestors there is not a trace of Spanish blood which would make him Spanish in real sense of word, just blood of the French dynasty who reigned in Spain and either married fellow Bourbons or Germans and Austrians...

What I wanted to say is that he can be Spanish as he is a Spanish citizen who reigns there, but saying that he is of Spanish ancestry just because his ancestors reigned there without a drop of Spanish blood is not reality.

Given that this discussion touches on multiple European royal families I hope this is the appropriate thread to respond.

If I understand you correctly, in your eyes, no length of time living in Spain is sufficient to designate a family as Spanish "in reality" (otherwise, King Felipe VI would certainly be of Spanish blood, given that he descends in direct lineage from medieval sovereigns of Spain). In that event, how should one determine whether a royal is of "Spanish blood"?

 

[Lady Maria]

Lady Maria

I would like to find information of any knowledge, anyone on this forum has of thier being descendants of the British Royal Family residing in Australia.

 

[Curryong]

https://www.abroadintheyard.com/rea...age-which-would-have-changed-british-history/


Here’s one. There are probably more, descendants of illegimate scions of royalty.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Given that this discussion touches on multiple European royal families I hope this is the appropriate thread to respond.

If I understand you correctly, in your eyes, no length of time living in Spain is sufficient to designate a family as Spanish "in reality" (otherwise, King Felipe VI would certainly be of Spanish blood, given that he descends in direct lineage from medieval sovereigns of Spain). In that event, how should one determine whether a royal is of "Spanish blood"?

Indeed:

Felipe de Borbón y Grecia is born from a Spanish father (Juan Carlos)

Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias is born from a Spanish father (Juan)

Juan de Borbón y Battenberg is born from a Spanish father (Alfonso XIII)

Alfonso XIII de Borbón y Habsburgo-Lorena is born from a Spanish father (Alfonso XII)

Alfonso XII de Borbón y Borbón is born from a Spanish father (Francisco de Asís)

Francisco de Asís de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias is born from a Spanish father (Francisco de Paula)

Francisco de Paula de Borbón y Borbón-Parma is born from a Spanish father (Carlos IV)

Etc.

How far needs one to go to declare a family "Spanish"? If we go this way, we can say no one is ever "American" but always remain 'Italian" or "Spanish" or "Irish"...