https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230503-coronation-of-king-charles-iii-do-you-carry-royal-dna
Of course, there is no mention of the highly inbred nature of royal families, which can have hundreds of lines to the present from, say, a 13th- or 14th- century ruler.
Nor any mention that even commoners _can_ be, and often are, highly inbred, or at least have multiple, remote or remote-ish, segments or sections in their ancestry in which all parties were inbred (multiple ways).
On 06-May-23 7:56 AM, JBrand wrote:. . .
Nor any mention that even commoners _can_ be, and often are, highly inbred, or at least have multiple, remote or remote-ish, segments or sections in their ancestry in which all parties were inbred (multiple ways).It seems more prudent to say that the British royal family of today is somewhat linebred rather than "highly inbred" - the parents of King
Charles III were third cousins, probably a similar degree of
consanguinity to many commoners in the past although not so much nowadays.
In my own case one of my maternal great-grandmothers as a widow married
one of my paternal great-granduncles, but I am not descended from this marriage. The first known common ancestor of my parents was living in
the mid-18th century. This is probably more typical of the world-wide Anglo-Celtic population than any lineage that could be meaningfully
called inbred.
The first known common ancestor of my parents was living in the mid-18th century. This is probably more typical of the world-wide Anglo-Celtic population than any lineage that could be meaningfully called inbred.
Peter Stewart wrote:
The first known common ancestor of my parents was living in the mid-18th century. This is probably more typical of the world-wide Anglo-Celtic population than any lineage that could be meaningfully called inbred.So far I haven't found a common ancestor of my parents although that may
be because they came from villages about 5 or 6 miles apart which,
possibly more significantly, were in different manors. I've found one
shared surname but any common ancestor would need to be in the C17th or earlier.
However my mother's ancestry has quite a number of second cousin marriages.
On my father's side my grandmother has 4 lines of descent to a C17th
couple and my grandfather has a further line to them. She also had 2
lines of descent to another C17th couple. All in all, due to
duplications, she has about 5/6th of the number of ancestors one would expect although there are a few dead ends so there might be further undiscovered duplication.
I have one common name, Newton, on both sides of that family but haven't connected them. What I do have is a lot of Kaye lines most if not all
of whom will descend from the 6 legitimate sons and one illegitimate of
John Kaye of Woodsome living in the C14th. I'm making progress with
some of them.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 10:29:42 |
Calls: | 6,666 |
Files: | 12,213 |
Messages: | 5,336,335 |