I was visiting my parents and my mom was so excited to show me our family tree via Family Search. My mom had added an ancestor to her line and poof the magical Internet added names to her family tree all the way back to AD 600's. I noticed one of the Kings of England in my blood line (2nd wife), The Queen of Italy and other royals.

So we're did the blood line go wrong? After King Charles 3, the family tree is full of Earl of this and Prince of that along with Lady whatever until we get to this son that married a lady with no freaking titles. It must of been for love because no one has been rich or famous since then.

What do we learn from ancestors? Marry for Money.

If the internet shows you are descended from King Charles the third ( I'm assuming by saying you had an English king in your bloodline you meant a King Charles 3 of England) then there is something very wrong with the ancestry site...until the current Prince of Wales, Prince Charles , succeeds his Mom and then decides to keep the name Charles when he is king there hasn't been a Charles the third. There's been lots of Charles in Europe though..maybe your Charles was French.!!

The last King Charles died in the late 17th century. There's been 8 Edwards, 8 Henrys, 6 Georges, 4 Williams, 3 Richards, 2 Charles, 2 James, 1 John and 1 Stephen.

I saw a tv show not that long ago that said almost everyone alive now is a descendant of Charlegmane. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents and so on..by the time you get back to Charlemagne's time you have more ancestors than there were people alive then. Looks like we all have royal blood....you may bow in my presence ..he he.

Anyone with Caucasian ancestry eventually has their lineage go through a "bottleneck" where only the privileged had significant issue.

Would Bonnie Prince Charles of Scotland have been Charles III if he had won at Culloden?

I shall have to check but I believe he would have been Charles III (the third) of Scots before they even left Holyrood, if unofficially. Allegedly he was not satisfied with the title King of Scots and wanted the English Throne he was entitled to - ever since James VI (sixth) the crown of Scotland was given independently until the act of union in 1707 which united the crowns. Ah, if only his forefathers stayed Protestant things would have been so much different for him.

There has been no 'official' Charles III (the third)

Our monarchs do not own the land, nor the people, unlike english or other european monarchs. The land belongs to the people; the the monarch is a Guardian of the people, hence King or Queen of Scots, but never King or Queen of Scotland.

Until 1707 Scots retained the right to replace their Monarch with a better one at any time and without notice.

Did I just misinterpret this? I thought James VI of Scotland is/was James the First of England. James being the protestant son of Mary Queen of Scots. So James the 6th Was King of Scots, but not of Scotland?

It doesn't "really" matter, except that the Royal family has castles/property in Scotland and I thought it was because they were the Monarchy of Scotland, England, Wales & N. Ireland.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I

Like me, a direct descendant of Karl-Friedrich Wilhelm von und zu Kötter-Johann. I just leave out the part that he was a cattle farmer in Nieder-Sachsen.

Almost anybody whose ancestors came from Europe can trace ancestry back to European royalty. Remember, by the time you get back to 1200 AD you potentially have millions of ancestors.

It isn't the LDS church that claims this - they just keep genealogical records.

No big deal.

+1...exactly...no big deal whatsoever.

We are all royalty. And reprobates.

European royalty in the medieval ages and some time later had their genealogy done to give them an impressive ancestry. It was not always done honestly. If you get on to some of those (fake) lines, you can trace your family back to Adam.

But remember the Roman saying: Pater semper incertus - The father is always uncertain.

Which is why Judaism descends through the mother. Certainty guaranteed.

That's the main reason ancient Picts were matriarchal and followed the mother's line. I think it is also why iriquois nation was (is) also matriarchal.

That's really interesting. I had no idea. I just did the math (rough estimate) and figured out that 24 generations back (about 400 years @ age of 25 becoming a parent) we would all have about 16 million ancestors. That's only back to when Jamestown was settled. Given this math, it's easy to see we'd all have royal ancestry.

What ???

No Neanderthal ancestry ?

We all have Neanderthal ancestry - except Africans, if I've understood correctly.

I went to the family search website but didn't register. Is it free? Will it provide a referral for the missionaries to visit me?

Screw the kings!

I'm the 4th cousin / 8something times removed, from ole horny Joe!

Yah! I'm Moron elite!

MUST BE a SURE ticket, to the flying spaghetti monster!

It says I am a descendant of Odin from Asgard.

So according to LDS, I really AM a child of god. Just not their god.

SweetSpirit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It says I am a descendant of Odin from Asgard.
>
> So according to LDS, I really AM a child of god. Just not their god.

Ah, then you are a distant cousin of my wife's, who also traces her ancestry back to Odin. Odin appears numerous times in church genealogical records. So I assume that his temple work has been done. At least once.

One of our lines traces to Minerva. Another traces to Adam.

Cool. Maybe you're eligible for an Asgard timeshare. I hear the views are out of this world.

The European identical ancestors point is roughly 1000 years ago. That means that if you have predominantly European ancestors you are decendent from every single European who was alive then and has living decendents. This includes Charlemagne and Mohammad, who wasn't European but had decendents who moved to Europe.

I've been able to trace my ancestry through azorian immigrants to Brazil. The Azores was colonized by portuguese nobility, that descended from iberian nobility. From there, there are links to almost every known king and noble from before the 13th century. I've traced descent from Mohammed by a grandson of King Ramiro II of Leon who married a christianized noble from the Caliphate of Cordoba.

That means nothing. Everyone with ANY european ancestry can probably do the same.

Of course family search didn't tell you about your 12th great grandmother who took her little secret to the grave. But wow was the sex hot!!

I find genealogy to be the parlor game of choice for bored LDS housewives who don't like mah jongg.

I went to the Family Search website and found it was inaccurate as regards my grandmother and her children and she was a Utah-born, temple married Mormon. If it isn't correct two generations back, I can only imagine how incorrect it is once one goes 15-20 generations back.

Frankly, doing a past life regression and finding out that you actually were Charles the Third in a past life is probably just as reliable!

My mother had my brothers(her son) birthday wrong. She had the names of my children, and their birthdays wrong. She's sent volumes of genealogy to SLC over 4 or 5 decades.

and Richard Warren of the Mayflower. Big whoop. My mother located a coat of arms and did an embroidery copy. This sure puffed us up.

Years later, my father allowed that the geneologist had a knack for finding distinguished forebears. I wasn't surprised. I was alienated from my Christian Science parents at the point, so it was anticlimactic big whoop. The land grabbers and horse thieves of a 150 years ago are now "distinguished forebears."

As an American and as a Christian, I believe that what counts is not where you (or your ancestors) came from, but what you are doing with your life today, and where you're going: for yourself, your family, your country, and (important for me) for God.

You may be as glamorous as a Kennedy or as rich as Bill Gates, but the worm still gets you.

Those were not worms!

Half of the people in Mongolia are related to Genghis Khan. Had Joseph made it to Utah and lived to a ripe old age, maybe half of the people in Utah would be related to him.

What I don't like is the preoccupation with being descended from earthly power like royalty, as if that's a good thing. There's this notion that suffering is a punishment and if you don't suffer it's because you were valiant in the preexistence. Pardon the stench. Suffering and being low of station is usually what comes with a life worth living.

Eventually many branches merge. My father's line merges to William Bradford of pilgrim fame through Williams first wife. My mothers merges with the same William Bradford through his second wife.

I think DNA is the only real proof of connecting to any royal-line of genealogy.

Throughout time there have been too many fence hoppers in too many family histories ... Cows, sheep, hogs or whatever!


DNA is our only true source of hope!

I personally haven't looked at any genealogy further back than 1800. My great-great-great grandfather was born in 1801. (There were only 6 generations in one line in 180 years.) Anything further back was so murky, I couldn't even be bothered.

If you have European ancestors usually they hook up to royalty.

If you have Royals, alot of it is questionable as the royals

hired people to invent some genealogy that made them look

even more royal. I hook up to Royalty on at least ten

different lines but I highly doubt their credibility. It

makes no difference since I'm a royal pain in the ass

sometimes anyway. :) The only ancestors that I have that

are exciting to me are the Native Americans.

I'm descended from Oceanus the personification of the seas. And also to some centaurs. Four legged creatures with hooves. It's all in family search!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2015 10:58PM by poopstone.

I was going to say something, about how parts of my family settled the original Northwest Territories (Ohio, Michigan, Illinois & Indiana?). Some stayed, some moved onto other territories. I'm still here, 200 years later.

But, did anyone top,Reg78Lurker56sometimesposter35, from above?

Yeap, that was me, being a jacka$$.

According to the IGI, that's gos-pill truth.

(I hate pills, they make me choke.)

edit: Who brought the thread, back from the dead?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2015 11:10PM by aquarius.

so when are you gong to trace your ancestry back to Adam ?

My response to silly comments like that: Congratulations! That factoid (plus a dollar) will get you a cup of coffee McDonald's.

themaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What do we learn from ancestors? Marry for Money.

What do we learn from our (ex) spouses ? - Do not get married at all.

All it takes is for one great grand parent somewhere to tie into some royal line, and then it all opens up because noble lineages have always been well-documented so that they could check the lineages of any family they were marrying into, etc. And there are lots of bottlenecks. And sure enough, I tie into Charlemagne/Karl der Grosse through four different routes, like lindy says. It's fascinating to see the road map, though it ultimately means very little.