If you go back 900 years almost any dozen people can find a common ancestor. Heck, I probably have a common ancestor with both Al Sharpton and George W. Bush, which is a very frightening thought.
However, I will give that girl credit for actually finding the relevant chains of ancestry.
Was also the first president to be born as a United States citizen. He was also the key organizer of the second party know as the Democrats. He was of Dutch ancestry.
Magna Carta written in Latin was signed by the reluctant English King, 1215.
English translation: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled; nor will we proceed with force against him, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice." - Magna Carta, Clause 39 & 40.
The Great Charter was written on parchment (sheepskin) with a quill pen using iron gall ink. It was composed in medieval Latin using the standard abbreviations of the time. In the charter itself the clauses are not numbered, and the text reads continuously.
There are four surviving copies of the 1215 Magna Carta, two held by the British Library in London, one at Salisbury Cathedral Chapter House and one at Lincoln Cathedral Archives. Magna Carta versions survive today: http://www.bsswebsite.me.uk/History/MagnaCarta/magnacarta-in...
Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul ☑
Now that's your quote of the year right there friends...
Why pandas? Why now?
Next thing you know, scientists will take this young gal's revelation to the next level of inter-generation generalization. We may discover: We are related to presidents & others via our mothers, as well.
2^40 = 1.0995116e+12 = ~ 2,000,000,000,000 = 2 trillion
(Direct ancestry of 800 years of breeding every 20 years). As 2 trillion people did not exist 800 years ago, your mother has some explaining to do.
Too bad the Magna Carta was just repealed.
I don't recall whether Plantangenet signed happily (probably under duress), so I can't say whether he's rolling in his grave or dancing a jig about it.
What do you think? http://consequeries.com/
Margna Carta versions. Continue to ascending (descending) revisions: 1215, 1216, 1217, 1225, 1297. All are brief & to the point... restricting the King. Each revision includes decry of the tyrant King. Note how short each successive version was enforced by the very King the Marga Carta restricted.
What I would like to know is what % of the total US population is related to this King. I think it could give perspective to how "elite" this group maybe.
I would guess... , but if it is, then this stat doesn't tell us much. But I think to understand how significant this might be we need to know how it compares to the population as a whole.
Even silent Cal is related?
I can tell you one who isn't related to him, Jefferson Davis.
What are the odds of that?
Do the math, John Plantagent was born in 1166, about 800 years before Obama, since that time, there have been at least 32 generations (4 every 100 years), that means 2^32 Direct ancestors from 800 years ago, assuming no inbreeding. That is 4,294,967,296 people. The problem is there were only about 300,000,000 people in the world in 1200 AD.
If you were of Northern european Decent, it is very likely you are related to almost everyone in that lived in England in 1200. The strange one is That Martin Van Buren isn't related.
You can't say he has 2^32 direct ancestors. It doesn't work like that.
Say John Plantagent had two kids, Bob and Dave. Bob falls over a cliff, leaving only Dave. Dave has two kids Sally and Keith. Keith is sterile, incapable of having kids and Sally becomes a devout nun vowing chastity, never having kids. That's the end of John Plantagent's blood line. Period.
To do things correctly you have to actually trace which offspring continued to have offspring down through time, but still have a common blood link. That's real genealogy.
Your number of over 4 billion people being directly related to John P. is absurd. There are only 7 billion on earth, and over 1 billion of those are Chinese alone.
2^32 ancestors is the maximum possible unique ancestors. it will be less, depending on how many shared ancestors your parents have.
The problem is, you are tracing from past to present. If you want to think about odds of being related to someone in the past, you need to look from present to past. 2 parents, 4 gparents, 8 ggparents, 16 gg grandparents, 32 ggggparents etc. If you go back enough generations this is a huge number of people. the fact is that everyone is related to a significant percentage of the worlds population in 1200 AD.
If you want to go from past to future, all a bloodline really needs to have a significant number of progeny in the future is a couple of 5 - 10 sibling families. Which was quite common in the past. 10 children, all of whom average 10 children of their own, and you have 100 grandchildren. 20-30 grandchildren was common even in the 1960s.
is your problem:
"2^32 ancestors is the maximum possible unique ancestors. it will be less, depending on how many shared ancestors your parents have."
Of course parents will likely have shared ancestors somewhere. You say yourself the odds of this increase the further you go back, so using the maximum possible number of unique ancestors (2^32 or 4+ billion) can't be right...
the idea of chasing back lineages a few hundred years to see who is related is ridiculous, let a lone thinking that there is a credible paper trail. I wonder if the media is trying to start up the divinity of the King garbage again.
This is not rigorous probability math, but:
Assuming 700-800 years ~ 30 generations
If each generation has 2.1 kids that survive to reproduce 2.1 offspring...
That would result in 4.6 billion descendants living today. So today, with a world pop of 7 billion, the odds are pretty good that you share a common ancestor with anyone else from 800 years ago. Those odds improve significantly if you make considerations for europeans breeding mainly with europeans.
I bet 43/44 presidents are probably related to Charlemagne, too.
Again, this is not rigorous probability analysis as there are some other considerations but it gives an idea
Thank you both for the nice summary
This girl had the revolutionary idea to actually consider the existence of women in the family tree! Who ever heard of such a crazy notion before? I wonder if the professional genealogists are arguing that she broke with etiquette or tradition when making her chart.