On 10-May-23 1:28, Ben Blaney wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:15:45 PM UTC-4, Kate B wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I watched it all and was surprisingly and deeply moved by it - the
>> importance of ritual, the sense of continuity over hundreds of years,
>
> I didn't watch, but have mainly been pondering on dynasties. I mean, the current bloke is on the throne because a thousand years ago one of his ancestors threw another bloke off the throne. So, if the house of Windsor were to be overthrown by a new crew, how would we react? Badly? If so, why aren't we muttering that this new fellow is illegitimate?
>

The "House of Windsor" hasn't been around for quite that long.

(Founded 17 July 1917)

--
Sam Plusnet

On Sat, 13 May 2023 21:03:50 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> a gribouillé
dans la poussière...

>On 10-May-23 1:28, Ben Blaney wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:15:45?PM UTC-4, Kate B wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW, I watched it all and was surprisingly and deeply moved by it - the
>>> importance of ritual, the sense of continuity over hundreds of years,
>>
>> I didn't watch, but have mainly been pondering on dynasties. I mean, the current bloke is on the throne because a thousand years ago one of his ancestors threw another bloke off the throne. So, if the house of Windsor were to be overthrown by a new crew, how would we react? Badly? If so, why aren't we muttering that this new fellow is illegitimate?
>>
>
>The "House of Windsor" hasn't been around for quite that long.
>
>(Founded 17 July 1917)

But there are connections with other houses going way back 1000 years to
Welsh and Irish Kings.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 13-May-23 22:33, Penny wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2023 21:03:50 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> a gribouillé
> dans la poussière...
>
>> On 10-May-23 1:28, Ben Blaney wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:15:45?PM UTC-4, Kate B wrote:
>>>
>>>> FWIW, I watched it all and was surprisingly and deeply moved by it - the
>>>> importance of ritual, the sense of continuity over hundreds of years,
>>>
>>> I didn't watch, but have mainly been pondering on dynasties. I mean, the current bloke is on the throne because a thousand years ago one of his ancestors threw another bloke off the throne. So, if the house of Windsor were to be overthrown by a new crew, how would we react? Badly? If so, why aren't we muttering that this new fellow is illegitimate?
>>>
>>
>> The "House of Windsor" hasn't been around for quite that long.
>>
>> (Founded 17 July 1917)
>
> But there are connections with other houses going way back 1000 years to
> Welsh and Irish Kings.

True, but if you took your own genealogy research back far enough, I'm
sure you are descended from Charlemagne.

(Busy chap, I understand.)

--
Sam Plusnet

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 12:15:38 AM UTC, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 13-May-23 22:33, Penny wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 May 2023 21:03:50 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> a gribouillé
> > dans la poussière...
> >
> >> On 10-May-23 1:28, Ben Blaney wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:15:45?PM UTC-4, Kate B wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> FWIW, I watched it all and was surprisingly and deeply moved by it - the
> >>>> importance of ritual, the sense of continuity over hundreds of years,
> >>>
> >>> I didn't watch, but have mainly been pondering on dynasties. I mean, the current bloke is on the throne because a thousand years ago one of his ancestors threw another bloke off the throne. So, if the house of Windsor were to be overthrown by a new crew, how would we react? Badly? If so, why aren't we muttering that this new fellow is illegitimate?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The "House of Windsor" hasn't been around for quite that long.
> >>
> >> (Founded 17 July 1917)
> >
> > But there are connections with other houses going way back 1000 years to
> > Welsh and Irish Kings.
> True, but if you took your own genealogy research back far enough, I'm
> sure you are descended from Charlemagne.
>
> (Busy chap, I understand.)

I was listening to a radio programme a little while ago - that programme might have been anything up to five years old before I got around to hearing it so it might not have been very current - and the presenter suggested that if you go back far enough everybody is related to everybody else and in multiple different ways.

I did ponder at the time what the reaction would be at the US border if I answered the officer's question, "Do you have any relatives in the USA?" with, "Yes. You."

Nick

On Sun, 14 May 2023 01:15:34 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> a gribouillé
dans la poussière...

>On 13-May-23 22:33, Penny wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 May 2023 21:03:50 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> a gribouillé
>> dans la poussière...
>>
>>> On 10-May-23 1:28, Ben Blaney wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:15:45?PM UTC-4, Kate B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, I watched it all and was surprisingly and deeply moved by it - the
>>>>> importance of ritual, the sense of continuity over hundreds of years,
>>>>
>>>> I didn't watch, but have mainly been pondering on dynasties. I mean, the current bloke is on the throne because a thousand years ago one of his ancestors threw another bloke off the throne. So, if the house of Windsor were to be overthrown by a new crew, how would we react? Badly? If so, why aren't we muttering that this new fellow is illegitimate?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The "House of Windsor" hasn't been around for quite that long.
>>>
>>> (Founded 17 July 1917)
>>
>> But there are connections with other houses going way back 1000 years to
>> Welsh and Irish Kings.
>
>True, but if you took your own genealogy research back far enough, I'm
>sure you are descended from Charlemagne.
>
>(Busy chap, I understand.)

Oh, I think many 'leaders of men' were very busy one way or another. We are
all related to Royalty.

One of the geniality websites (possibly the Mormon one), keeps emailing me
to tell me I am directly related to American presidents. I've only checked
out one, which claimed I was related to Abraham Lincoln. The line it took
placed me, several steps sideways, in his wife's family tree. No direct
connection with Abraham at all.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Sun, 14 May 2023 01:15:34 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
> True, but if you took your own genealogy research back far enough, I'm
> sure you are descended from Charlemagne.

Reminds me of a bit from Hancock's Half Hour:
"I can trace my ancestry all the way back to Rufus Hancock."
"Who was he?"
"My father."

--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

In message <8h616i5a74iufubskn9258fj46dfucetj2@4ax.com> at Sun, 14 May
2023 09:31:46, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>On Sun, 14 May 2023 01:15:34 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> a gribouillé
>dans la poussière...
[]
>>True, but if you took your own genealogy research back far enough, I'm
>>sure you are descended from Charlemagne.
>>
>>(Busy chap, I understand.)
>
>Oh, I think many 'leaders of men' were very busy one way or another. We are
>all related to Royalty.

Well, we have 2^n ancestors at any point in history, where n is the
number of generations between then and now; a generation is about 20
years. Wikipedia says Charlemagne was 747-814, so he'd be fathering from
about 125x years ago, or about 63 generations. 2^63 is a ridiculous
number.

Let's try another tack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population
only goes back to 1400, and estimates world population then as 0.35-0.4
billion. That's about 31 generations ago - we'd have 2.1 billion
ancestors.

Obviously our number of ancestors isn't that great because some of them
would have been cousin marriages, but we only have to go back to
somewhere between 1400 and 1500 for us to be descended from everyone
alive in the world.

There are fallacies in this simple method, but you don't have to go
_that_ far back before the chance of being descended from anyone alive
then gets quite high, especially with much smaller populations then.

Let me see if I can find figures for UK rather than world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Before_the
_census,_200%E2%80%931800 says: Domesday book in 11th century, ~2m. (Had
been _more_ before that.) By 1377, <= 3.1m. By 1750, 5.74m. 1801 census,
10.5m.
>
>One of the geniality websites (possibly the Mormon one), keeps emailing me
>to tell me I am directly related to American presidents. I've only checked
>out one, which claimed I was related to Abraham Lincoln. The line it took
>placed me, several steps sideways, in his wife's family tree. No direct
>connection with Abraham at all.

They do tend to overemphasise such connections - especially the LDS
("Mormons" or familysearch); they've improved since the days of the IGI
which was full of wishful thinking, but still tend to include dodgy or
definitely wrong connections, and although there is a mechanism to
disconnect them, it's tedious to use.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"... all your hard work in the hands of twelve people too stupid to get off jury
duty." CSI, 200x

On 14.5.23 09:31, Penny wrote:
> One of the geniality websites

Probably means we are all part of the human race?

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics