Maybe , but I still need to see King John's long form birth certificate.
And his college records.
Seventh Grader Says Bloodlines of 42 of 43 U.S. Presidents Link Back to King John of England: Believable or Baloney?
Fergie
2012/08/08 22:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
221 votes
|
|
65% | |||
|
119 votes
|
|
35% | |||
A 7th grader made national news this week when her genealogy report revealed that 42 of the 43 U.S. presidents are descendants of King John Lackland of England. (Our 8th President Martin Van Buren is the only one not related.)
BridgeAnne d'Avignon was supposed to trace her own genealogy for the assignment, but doing so sparked her interest and she ended up spending months researching 500,000 names before coming to this amazing discovery. I actually went to the same school she attends and did that same project -- it's still in my closet somewhere -- so now I'm thinking I should have put more effort into it... But what do you guys think? Are her findings believable?
NYDAILYNEWS.COM reports:
BridgeAnne d'Avignon was supposed to trace her own genealogy for the assignment, but doing so sparked her interest and she ended up spending months researching 500,000 names before coming to this amazing discovery. I actually went to the same school she attends and did that same project -- it's still in my closet somewhere -- so now I'm thinking I should have put more effort into it... But what do you guys think? Are her findings believable?
NYDAILYNEWS.COM reports:
A young California girl made the ultimate presidential family tree and found that all of the U.S. commander-in-chiefs except for one share an ancestor - King John of England.
Read More: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/genes-sev...
Top Opinion
-
BritPunk 2012/08/08 19:51:58
Enoch wrote a "book" that covered that. It was subsequently eliminated from any version of the bible I've seen. Because it was too far-fetched, or because it hit too close to home? I really don't know. I've often wondered what the human race is doing here. To my knowledge we're the only ones who kill other animals for sport or our own in wars to be buried in mass graves.
One thing I don't understand. When the new "aristocracy," the moneyed class, overthrew the old landed class, how was the bloodline transferred?
"Wife: Avisa (m. 1189, annulled for consanguinity)"
Then I had to look up "consanguinity" to double check what it meant: "of being from the same kinship as another person" (incest)
King John lived long enough ago that it's quite plausible that 42 out of 43 Presidents (and even most of us with any English ancestry) are descended from him. At the same time, I find it extremely unlikely that this one girl has actually done all of the work that would be necessary to demonstrate it. I mean, just imagine:
You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc. If you assume 30 years for each generation (generous), then there are about 25 generations between the year 1200 and Barack Obama's birthdate. If you go back that far, you'll probably end up with a good number of duplicate ancestors (people who pop up in multiple areas in your family tree), but still, an exhaustive search would require you to look into a whopping (2^28 - 1) nodes for Obama alone, or over 268 million. (Assuming 2 children per generation, I might estimate that King John might have had somewhere around that many descendants as well.) Now, an exhaustive search probably isn't going to be necessary, since I expect King John would pop up not just once but pretty frequently 25 generations down the line. Still, it would take a lot of time and effort to get 25 generations of records for just ONE random ancestral "path" that far back, an...
King John lived long enough ago that it's quite plausible that 42 out of 43 Presidents (and even most of us with any English ancestry) are descended from him. At the same time, I find it extremely unlikely that this one girl has actually done all of the work that would be necessary to demonstrate it. I mean, just imagine:
You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc. If you assume 30 years for each generation (generous), then there are about 25 generations between the year 1200 and Barack Obama's birthdate. If you go back that far, you'll probably end up with a good number of duplicate ancestors (people who pop up in multiple areas in your family tree), but still, an exhaustive search would require you to look into a whopping (2^28 - 1) nodes for Obama alone, or over 268 million. (Assuming 2 children per generation, I might estimate that King John might have had somewhere around that many descendants as well.) Now, an exhaustive search probably isn't going to be necessary, since I expect King John would pop up not just once but pretty frequently 25 generations down the line. Still, it would take a lot of time and effort to get 25 generations of records for just ONE random ancestral "path" that far back, and who knows how long it would take before you happened upon a path that led to King John?
It would be easier to do subsequent Presidents if you kept track of common ancestors between Presidents who also descended from King John, but sheesh. This sounds like an enormous undertaking that would involve physical trips into England's archives and everything...so unless this seventh grader is VERY clever and resourceful, or unless genealogical websites have gotten a lot more advanced than I remember (i.e. able to do the searching for you), it sounds unlikely that she's actually demonstrated what she's claiming...
EDIT: ...but if Longstride is right about King John being famously impotent, then he's more likely to have zero than 268 million or so descendants...at least that we would know of. ;)
can anyone tell me what it matters. oh wait this is one of those nwo threads. my mistake it does matter to the conspiracy nutjobs
Probably not 42 out of 43 people, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them had a royal or two in their ancestry.
There could be worse people to be descended from. One recent study showed that an estimated 16 million people, mostly in mainland Asia, are descended from Genghis Khan.
What's with the unprovoked attack on my great, great, great, ...., great grandpa Genghis?;-) His hordes probably weren't much worse than those of the British East India Tea and Cocaine Empire. Maybe not as bad. These were the bastards that firebombed, I think if was Copenhagen, because the Danish king would not turn over his fleet to the British. One would have been the signal for Genghis' hordes and two for the British barbarians.
If you go back far enough we are all related, in theory, through Adam and Eve - or "Lucy" if you are an evolutionist.
The earliest settlers were predominately English and there was extensive intermariage among groups, expecially in the upper economic strata.
I can 100% say this is not true at all, if 1 of them have genes linked to him I'd be surprised.
Anyone who writes believable might want to do their research into the royal bloodline.
Not only is is physically and practically impossible it's pure and simply false. End of story really, Richard and Johns bloodline was kept pure throughout the centuries often through inbreeding.
It's not only implausible it's impossible.
When we fought the regionalists in Bucks County, PA, they were funded and supported by Philly's Main Line Tories. Their ancestors were wining and dining the British officers while Washington and his men were freezing their butts off at Valley Forge.
I can also tell you that, during my active days, every time one to the royal bandits came here extending the hand of friendship (palm up), the Tories flocked to a $1000 a plate dinner at the Mezzanine in Wanamakers. Wanamakers is gone now, but I'm sure they've found another location where they can pay homage to their royal family.
It's believable, though. At some point most of us should be related..... because years ago when our present day species evolved to this current form, there probably wasn't a whole lot to be breeding...
have ruled us all for centuries-