Power Gene?

[Steve Hayes]

Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended
from a medieval English king

12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S.
presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215
Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John

By Snejana Farberov

Published: 02:14 GMT, 5 August 2012 | Updated: 05:58 GMT, 5 August
2012

(So not new, but interesting none the less -- I wonder if anyone has
checked her work?)

<URL:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html>

What do Barack Obama, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush and the other
past U.S. presidents have in common? Besides holding the coveted title
of commander-in-chief, it appears that all of them but one are
cousins.

The remarkable discovery was made by 12-year-old BridgeAnne d’Avignon,
of Salinas, California, who created a ground-breaking family tree that
connected 42 of 43 U.S. presidents to one common, and rather
unexpected, ancestor: King John of England.

‘They all have the trait of wanting power,’ d’Avignon told the station
WFMY.

Budding genealogist: BridgeAnne d'Avignon created a family tree that
connected 42 of 43 U.S. presidents to one common ancestor
History detective: It took d'Avignon several months to search through
more than 500,000 names and trace the male and female lineages of
American leaders

King John, also known as John ‘Lackland’, is renowned for signing the
Magna Carta in 1215, which limited the monarch’s power and helped form
the British Parliament.

John’s other claim to fame, or infamy, is that he was depicted as the
villain in the Robin Hood tales.

Common grandfather: The 12-year-old traced the lineages of nearly all
of the U.S. presidents to King John, the signer of the Magna Carta

D’Avignon, a seventh-grader at Monte Vista Christian School in
Watsonville, started the project in hopes of tracing back her own
bloodline in France, but somewhere along the way she decided to take
her genealogical quest to the highest level.

In order to create the family tree, the 12-year-old spent months
scouring through over 500,000 names in search of the ‘presidential
Adam.’

Her 80-year-old grandfather, who has been tracing roots for nearly six
decades, helped her make the presidential links.

D’Avignon started with the first U.S. president, George Washington,
she traced both the male and female family lines to make the
connection.

Prior to d’Avignon’s discovery, genealogists were only able to link 22
families of presidents, likely because they only focused on male
bloodlines.

The only former commander-in-chief not linked to King John is the
eighth president, Martin Van Buren, who had Dutch roots.

The teen also found out that she is the 18th cousin of President
Obama. She even wrote to her new-found relative a letter to share her
findings with him.

So far, however, d’Avignon said she received only a generic response
from the White House.

D’Avignon created a poster of the presidential family tree and is
selling signed copies of it in hopes of raising enough money to make a
trip to Washington DC. The middle-school student says her goal is to
hand-deliver a replica of her family tree to the president.

'I think we just all go back somewhere; it’s just a matter of proving
it,' she said.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Steve Hayes
Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended
from a medieval English king
12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S.
presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215
Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John

My wife is descended from King John[1], should she be the next
president? Many people are, it's an inevitable consequence of simple
arithmetic and the number of generations in between. You probably are
and I probably am, though I am unlikely to ever be able to prove it.[2]

Absolutely nothing to do with genetic disposition (after 22 generations???)

As to why van Buren is not descended from John, the clue is in the name.
His ancestry was Dutch.

[1] John is her 22-great-grandfather.

[2] My family disappear somewhere in Berkshire in the mid 18th century.

[Evertjan.]

Post by Graeme Wall
As to why van Buren is not descended from John, the clue is in the name.
His ancestry was Dutch.

For us genealogist the clue would be in his tree.

The "why" is nonsense as long as the fact is not established.

How would you know he was not a descendant?
You would have to have Martin's complete tree.

The North Sea at the timespan in question
was not a unsurmountable sperm or egg barrier!

[Ian Goddard]

Post by Steve Hayes
Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended
from a medieval English king
12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S.
presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215
Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John
By Snejana Farberov
Published: 02:14 GMT, 5 August 2012 | Updated: 05:58 GMT, 5 August
2012
(So not new, but interesting none the less -- I wonder if anyone has
checked her work?)
<URL:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html>
What do Barack Obama, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush and the other
past U.S. presidents have in common? Besides holding the coveted title
of commander-in-chief, it appears that all of them but one are
cousins.
The remarkable discovery was made by 12-year-old BridgeAnne d’Avignon,
of Salinas, California, who created a ground-breaking family tree that
connected 42 of 43 U.S. presidents to one common, and rather
unexpected, ancestor: King John of England.

...

There are a couple of factors to consider.

1. The genealogist's syllogism: we need a name here, this is a name, it
must go here (cf. the politician's syllogism). There is a reluctance to
say "I don't know" when presented with a choice of alternatives (of
which none may be the correct ancestor) and, picking one, there is a
tendency to pick a high status name.

2. The founder effect. Early European migrants to N America are likely
to have more descendants than later immigrants by virtue of there being
more generations between then and now and so are overrepresented in the
present population. Such migration required capital and maybe
religious/political incentives; these are more likely to have been
higher status individuals at home and more likely to have had a royal
descent - or at least have ancestors who claimed that, see 1.

[Richard Smith]

Post by Ian Goddard
2. The founder effect. Early European migrants to N America are likely
to have more descendants than later immigrants by virtue of there being
more generations between then and now and so are overrepresented in the
present population. Such migration required capital and maybe
religious/political incentives; these are more likely to have been
higher status individuals at home and more likely to have had a royal
descent - or at least have ancestors who claimed that, see 1.

I'm not sure it's true that the early immigrants had higher social
status at home. Rarely were they from a higher class than the yeomanry,
and finding royal descents for them is a very hard task. I think the
reason the founder effect makes a different is that it concentrates so
much research effort on a very few individuals, and in a reasonable
number of cases this has proved fruitful.

There's a similar effect for presidents. Far more people will be trying
to research the ancestry of a US president than, say, your ancestry or
mine. You've said before you don't have a known royal line of descent.
Do you think that would still be the case if a hundred other highly
competent researchers spent several years researching your ancestry?
Possibly it would not change anything, but I'd suggest it's quite likely
one of these researchers might find something.

Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Ian Goddard
2. The founder effect. Early European migrants to N America are likely
to have more descendants than later immigrants by virtue of there being
more generations between then and now and so are overrepresented in the
present population. Such migration required capital and maybe
religious/political incentives; these are more likely to have been
higher status individuals at home and more likely to have had a royal
descent - or at least have ancestors who claimed that, see 1.

I'm not sure it's true that the early immigrants had higher social
status at home. Rarely were they from a higher class than the
yeomanry, and finding royal descents for them is a very hard task. I

...

[]
Is it definitely so that they weren't that high status? As Ian says,
"Such migration required capital" - quite significant capital, I'd have
thought; as such I'd have expected them to be at least well-known, even
if not of high "class", in the regions they came from.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith

2.  The founder effect.  Early European migrants to N America are likely
to have more descendants than later immigrants by virtue of there being
more generations between then and now and so are overrepresented in the
present population.  Such migration required capital and maybe
religious/political incentives; these are more likely to have been
higher status individuals at home and more likely to have had a royal
descent - or at least have ancestors who claimed that, see 1.

I'm not sure it's true that the early immigrants had higher social
status at home.  Rarely were they from a higher class than the
yeomanry, and finding royal descents for them is a very hard task.  I

[]
Is it definitely so that they weren't that high status? As Ian says,
"Such migration required capital" - quite significant capital, I'd have
thought; as such I'd have expected them to be at least well-known, even
if not of high "class", in the regions they came from.

...

Though there were the indentured servants, one step up from slaves in
that they could be free after seven years or whatever period. They were
most unlikely to be from the upper classes.

[Ian Goddard]

Post by Richard Smith
I'm not sure it's true that the early immigrants had higher social
status at home.  Rarely were they from a higher class than the yeomanry

I doubt ag labs would think of yeomen as not being of high(ish) status.

[Denis Beauregard]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:35:15 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended
from a medieval English king
12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S.
presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215
Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John

The keyword of the article here "12-year-old girl".

There is a web site that is already publishing the genealogy of
presidents and already linking them to some royalty. Something
like warc.

As for the main statement, I found that from a study from 100
couples married in Quebec in 1939-1940 that 84% of them have some
royal ancestry. And if I keep only those with a French catholic
ancestry, i.e. those for which I can easily build a complete tree,
this jumps to 96%. Applying the same to USA will give similar results,
i.e. most people with old USA roots will have some royal ancestors.

That said, you should post your question to s.g.medieval !


Denis

[catalpa]

Post by Steve Hayes
Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended
from a medieval English king
12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S.
presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215
Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John
<SNIP>

This is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge heap of nonsense.

How do you trace all those ancestors in the 1300s, 1400s, 1500s and 1600s ?

Most people can't even name or track down their great-grandparents.

All my ancestors were dirt poor starving peasants.

If it turns out I have any royal blood I'll abdicate !

[Steve Hayes]

Post by catalpa

Post by Steve Hayes
Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended
from a medieval English king
12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S.
presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215
Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John
<SNIP>

This is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge heap of nonsense.
How do you trace all those ancestors in the 1300s, 1400s, 1500s and 1600s ?
Most people can't even name or track down their great-grandparents.
All my ancestors were dirt poor starving peasants.

...

As Denis Beauregard says, it is enough to know that the researcher is
12 years old.

I've been researching my children's ancestry for over 40 years, and
have not got further back than the 16th century on any line, and on
most of those there are some dubious links. How can a 12-year-old have
done the same for so many people in such a short time?

Admittedly US presidents are celebs of a sort, and so more people may
have already have done some research on their ancestry, and she was
probably piggy-backing on that. But still, how accurate is such
research?

[Doug Laidlaw]

Post by Steve Hayes
Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended
from a medieval English king
12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S.
presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215
Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John
By Snejana Farberov
Published: 02:14 GMT, 5 August 2012 | Updated: 05:58 GMT, 5 August
2012

The "Royals" family tree goes back to Queen Victoria, who was claimed to
be related to all the European royal families. Prince Charles claimed
descent from Vlad the Impaler, the "original Dracula." He had the title
Dracul, meaning Dragon.

To the story that a noble living in Jerilderie Australia was the true
heir to the throne, tracing back to Richard III, one reply pointed out
that there are breaks in descent going back to Norman times. William
claimed the throne in right of his wife, who had Alfred the Great in her
tree.

(I am limited to 3 groups. That should be plenty.)

Doug.