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).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06-May-23 7:56 AM, JBrand wrote:

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).

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.

Many people with English ancestry might find Edward III as their closest crowned-head connection if they could get back far enough. Multiple
lines to him in most cases would reflect endogamy based on geographic
proximity and/or religious confession: broadly, villagers marrying
meetable eligible partners within walking/riding distance, or in US
gateway terms Quakers marrying other Quakers, Episcopalians other Episcopalians, etc. Not "high" inbreeding in the vast majotiy of
instances. The Habsburgs and Bourbons have left royalty in general with
a largely inaccurate reputation.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:59:57 PM UTC-5, Peter Stewart wrote:

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.

Despite having considerable success tracing the ancestry of all four of my grandparents, I have yet to find any documented evidence that any two of them were related to each other. In addition, neither of my grandfathers has any traced duplications in
their ancestry. I have traced three duplications among my maternal grandmother's ancestors, all concerning marriages of either first cousins or first cousins once removed. One concerns a fairly well-known Doggett-Lappage marriage in Suffolk having lots
of descendants (or at least claimed descendants) who include them in their trees, while the other two involve obscure Yorkshire families which might not be of interest to more than a handful of people other than me. In contrast to this, it would take me
quite a while to count how many duplicated ancestors I have traced for my paternal grandmother, a descendant of German immigrants whose ancestors mostly lived in one small area of Hessen. The closet of these is a second cousin match, with numerous third
and fourth and more distant cousin matches.

Stewart Baldwin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 1:26:54 AM UTC-7, Ian Goddard wrote:

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.

My parents are second cousins (father's maternal grandfather and mother's paternal grandmother were siblings, though born more than 15 years apart), and there are known cousin marriages earlier in my father's ancestry. I sometimes refer to my tree as
having three sides: his, hers, and theirs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)