Talk:Royal descent

Importance

OK, the stub tag has been replaced with an importance tag, asking for discussion. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject of royal descent (eg. it is at least well-known in a community). It is often discussed by genealogists, for example on soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.genealogy.britain, and alt.talk.royalty. It is also of interest to geneticists and sociologists because royal descent is the easiest exemplar of the concept of the most recent common ancestor because of the strength of the historical record for royal families and their descendants (see, for example, the widely quoted discussion by Prof Steve Jones in In the Blood: God, Genes and Destiny (1996) suggesting that 25% of Britons have a royal descent). There are numerous books about particular royal descents, but more encyclopedic are the many references by historians to the concept of widespread royal descents and to its implications for our understanding of the development of society: for example, in the works of Sir Anthony Wagner, including Pedigree and Progress (1975) and English Genealogy (1983).Chelseaboy 12:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up the article

Myself and two other editors cleaned up the article to make it more neat and have it sound more like an Encyclopedic article. We also added in some extra information that seemed to be missing from the first version of the article. RosePlantagenet 14:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Inbreeding

During the early middle ages many royals married their cousins. It was not an uncommon thing to do, although, the church disagreed with it. If you wish to get a better understanding then please check out their family trees. Start with the early French royal family and the Plantagenets. As for the aunts and nephews thing, I question that too. So, it is coming out for now. I understand you like history but you need to look at other royal lines besides British royal family.

Royal families still continue inbreeding today. So the genetic mutations have nothing to do with "old royalty". Example: Queen Elizabeth II and her husband are second cousins once removed. Again, please examine royal family trees before continuing to edit this page. You need to look at the information before you edit and not edit it based on your own point of view. RosePlantagenet 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am certain they married cousins but the key here to the reaction of the Church would be how close the relationship was. For example:

• Joanna La Beltraneja, daughter of Joan of Portugal, married her maternal uncle Afonso V of Portugal in 1475. Pope Sixtus IV reacted by having their wedding annuled on account of their family relation.

• The future Louis XII of France married his second cousin, once removed Joan of France, Duchess of Berry in 1476. The relationship was distant enough to cause no particular reaction. User:Dimadick

I'm not editing it based on POV. But I've looked at the early Plantagenet and Capetian family trees, and as a rule they didn't marry cousins (i.e. second or nearer, 3rd was rather rare) - they happened on a few occasions, but the relatively relaxed rules about the class of the spouse (a royal prince or princess didn't have to marry royalty - e.g. Charles V of France married the daughter of the Duke of Bourbon, one of Edward I's daughters married the Earl of Gloucester), the large number of available marital partners, and the religious strength of the time meant that marriages to close relatives were rare. By the 16th century, the disappearance of many of the old feudal houses (e.g. the absorption of the low countries nobility, the almost extinction of the Capetian families, the integration of Iberia), the increased formality (royalty had to marry royalty - where the marriage of the King's daughter to a prominent noble would have been unexceptional, if not standard practice in earlier years, by Henry VIII's time, the idea of his sisters marrying non-royalty was considered shocking - although the divorces and lack of royal assent didn't help), and the religious divide (few inter-faith marriages) meant that, for many royal families, the only acceptable marriages were to close relatives. In this, incidentally, the Hanoverians were pretty much as standard - many of them married traceable cousins (George I, George IV and Victoria all married 1st cousins). I meant 'old royalty' as one might say 'old money' - i.e. well-established, long tradition. The Serbian royal family (and their heirs, should any exist), as a 'new royal family', were less inbred. And, incidentally, 'inbreeding' in the biological sense is extremely rare - it almost never happens with any degree of kinship further than first cousin, and even there it is hardly common. The only 'inbred' member of the Habsburg family was Charles II, due to his mother being father's niece. Michaelsanders 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's only really the Spanish royalty who intermarried to a dangerous degree prior to the modern period - their royal lineage got horribly tangled up, for various reasons, culminating - perhaps - in Joanna the Mad. So yes, the four families of Iberia married close cousins - or worse: consider Joanna Beltraneja and her uncle, Isabella and her cousin Ferdinand, Ferdinand and his half-great-niece Germaine, John II and Juana Henriquez, etc. That is not to say it was so in other royal families prior to 16th (after that, it really kicked off - consider Louis XIV and his double first cousin...). Michaelsanders 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? I can tell that you have gotten most of your information from this site. And, that is okay, the problem is that anyone and I mean "anyone" can edit this site. So, the information is not always accurate, which is unfortunate. My suggestion would be to not depend on this site but read some biography books about these people. Might I suggest books by, Antonia Fraser, Eleanor Herman, Alison Weir, Sarah Bradford, David Williamson, Rene de La Croix, duc de Castries, Nancy Whitelaw (she did a whole series on Europes Queens), Karl Shaw, ect. The most recent one I have been reading (I can not put it down) is The Habsburgs: Embodying Empire by Andrew Wheatcroft. Gives a whole timeline and a family tree on the Hasburgs from Spain to Austria. Unless you have already read these books? If you like I could list some more of my collection.

According to these books inbreeding happened among royals, whether the church liked or not. Marrying your close (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th) cousin is inbreeding. And, when a family inbreeds it lowers the number of direct descendents based on the genetic mutations and other issues that happen. It is what it is and no amount of changing the information so millions can be descended from Edward III through illegimate and legimate children or royalty is going to make it any different. You can most certainly change the information on this site to suit your and other people's point of view (which on numerous occassions people on this site have nasty habit of doing), but you can not change the books and the correct information. It is what it is. Maybe royal ancestors do not define a person but it sure does feel nice when you can prove it. RosePlantagenet 14:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have got most of my information from Lines of Succession, by Jiri Louda and Michael Maclagan. I recommend reading it - lovely family trees and heraldic insignia. And it shows who, in the major European royal families, from roughly 1000, married who. 'Gotten most of my information from this site'? I'm not really sure where that idea comes from. And what information on wikipedia is wrong, anyway? Are you claiming that (for example) Henry I of France didn't marry Anne of Kiev because she and her sisters were the only available women in Europe he wasn't related to?

I have to say, I feel insulted by your suggestions that I edit to suit a point of view, Miss Plantagenet. I have no interest in subverting wikipedia to any purpose other than the proliferation of accurate information. I really don't care who is descended from Edward III or not, least of all myself - I'm quite happy with my working class and peasant stock Russian Jewish, Welsh and English roots.

It is, I am afraid, a simple truth that what we might term 'the age of inbreeding' only hit around the 16th century, under the conditions above described (except in Iberia, which was something of a special case). I don't know what Antonia Fraser, Alison Weir, et al have been saying, but if they are claiming that European royalty, prior to the 16th century, made a habit of marrying close (i.e. 2nd or closer) relatives, they are wrong. Marriages between close relatives were discouraged, which wasn't that much of a problem. It was only when half the royal families in Europe had died out or driven themselves into extinction (e.g. by 1600 almost all the Capetian families were dead, the English royal family was gone, the Low Countries, Burgundian, Iberian and Hungarian families had been absorbed by the Habsburgs), that inbreeding became effectively necessary to the royal families, who were becoming increasingly determined not to marry those of lower social status. Inbreeding struck the Habsburgs in particular - because they were the only royal family producing a plethora of children at this time, the simplest solution to a male's lack of spouse was to marry him to the daughter of another branch. This wasn't particularly the case prior to the 16th century.

And there it is. I'm not sure where you get your information, but it is not correct. Indeed, given conditions of the time, I'd say the royalty of the time was less inbred than the commoners of the day. Michaelsanders 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay...you believe commoners are more inbreed than royalty. You got most of your information from one book and this site. You do not know who Antonia Fraser and Alison Weir are. You also believe they and other historians are wrong (wow). You believe you know more than the historians. And, you do not know who those other authors are, nor have you actually read any of their books? Okay, no offense, but I can safely say this discussion is now over and not even worth continuing. But, I will give you some advise, because I can tell are very young. You should really considered reading these books and others to expand your knowledge and refrain from calling historians flat out wrong, before editing on this site. Sooner or later a real historian (there are a few here) is going to do a better job at calling you on your edits than myself, and they (not all of them will be as patient as I have been) will make you look very foolish. Anyway, wow, good luck to you. RosePlantagenet 15:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay...it is likely that in the Middle Ages, the villagers who were likely to live and die without going more than 20 miles away from their birthplace were likely to be more inbred than the royalty who had the resources to move around and get their wives/husbands from further away. I have got my information from family trees, which actually show the marriages (you claimed that only four of Edward III's children produced legitimate children. Where did that come from?). I know perfectly well who Antonia Fraser and Alison Weir are (and a few of the other authors) - I said, I don't know what they have been saying about pre-16th century marriages. I am saying that if they are denying the facts, they are wrong. Please be more careful in reading what I have written instead of flying off with a vague (and wrong) idea of what I have written - it suggests that you have done the same with the authors you refer to (but do not cite). I also have to say that I do not like your attitude - accusing other editors of POV and bias, and of "changing the information so millions can be descended from Edward III " is not remotely helpful. Nor is taking the superior attitude that because you are older than me (and how old are you?) you are able to dispense condescending advice. Yes, I'm young. So what? Age is not necessarily indicative of wisdom, or knowledge. Wikipedia is a meritocratic society, where the favour falls to those best able to contribute - not those who hold eccentric ideas about bloodline and intermarriage.

So, if you want to talk civilly again, I'd be happy to. But please, actually give some indication that you have not skimmed through my comments and utterly misunderstood them, and please drop the attitude. It isn't helpful. Michaelsanders 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, that inferiority section (and the rest of the article, but especially the inferiority section) needs citing. What scientists think 'royal blood' is genetically inferior? Michaelsanders 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory

This article is unsatisfactory as regards article rules. It is riddled with uncited claims and out-and out Original Research on the part of the authors. It is in need of serious clean-up and referencing. Here are some examples of what needs fixing:

• However, the number who could prove such a descent is likely to be very much smaller than the number who actually have it. - Prove it.

• The population descended from European Royal Families is a very small percentage. - Prove it.

• The royal families believed their blood was superior to that of the common person, and they should not dilute it with blood from outsiders. Therefore, 1% of the world's entire population today is directly descended from European Royalty. - Prove it (in particular, remarkably precise statement - "1% of the world's entire population is directly descended" - how on earth could that possibly be calculated?).

• Interestingly, some residents of the United States are descended from ancient royal British ancestry. This is because the English royal family did not insist only on royal marriages for all its children. However, that group only includes those whose ancestors arrived with the British colonization of the Americas during the 17th century, particularly families that settled in the Colony and Dominion of Virginia. - This section is far too specific: there are other people in other nations descended from royalty other than that of Britain. "Some residents of the United States are descended from ancient royal British ancestry." - such as King Cole? "This is because the English royal family did not insist only on royal marriages for all its children." - no royal family did, and unsourced. "However, that group only includes those whose ancestors arrived with the British colonization of the Americas during the 17th century, particularly families that settled in the Colony and Dominion of Virginia." - unsourced and over-specific - there has been immigration to the US for generations, many of whom would be descended from royalty of all nations.

• Since, these families in the New World had no one else of their rank to marry, many of the families intermarried with one another through several generations. - Source it.

• It should be noted that not all of these noble and middle class families were descendents of the Plantagenets. Claiming the nobles and royals were the only ones to survive the Middle Ages, is incorrect. Although the Middle Ages were a rough time for anyone who was a peasant, royals and nobles were not exempt from the hardships either, regardless of their status. - Seems to reacting to unmentioned claim (that all noble and middle class families are descended from Plantagenets), and unsourced. "Claiming the nobles and royals were the only ones to survive the Middle Ages, is incorrect" - who claims this (plus unsourced, and quite frankly stupid comment - would anyone really claim that no-one apart from royalty survived the Middle Ages?). Also, seems to have precious little to do with royal descent.

• An interesting theory, however, many argue that the mathematics are flawed. - really, who?

• In order for millions to be directly descended from Edward III certain things must be factored into the statistics. First, there are twenty to twenty-five years in a generation. Second, not all the descendents survived into adulthood, since it was common up until the 20th century for children to die at birth or in childhood. Third, if these people did survive and made it to adulthood, not all produced children. Fourth, many of his direct descendents intermarried with other direct descendents. Finally, it takes many centuries for a population to intermarry sufficiently for it to claim widespread descent from a single person. In the spread of time itself, seven hundred years is not a long enough time. Theoretically, millions could be descended from Edward (if one assumes unproven illegitimacies amongst his descendants); in practice, however, the number of provable descendants, around the world, would only be in the (hundreds of) thousands. - looks like Original Research and Reasoning - if this has been independently calculated, source it, if not, it stays out.

I agree with the above contributor that direct descendancy is far fewer than most estimates. However I believe that the following being the most likely hypothesis for determining an estimatable direct descendancy number, for we'll say, Charlemagne. The year is 742. The world population is approximately 300,000. One Charlemagne existing. Now the year is 2008. The world population is now, 6,000,000,000. The ratio from any one in 300,000, to 6 billion is approximately 20,000. Thus "only" 20,000 direct descendants of Charlemagne. And yes, I have completed the same equasion, using only the populations of Europe, the Americas, and east Asia, as few descendants of Charles would be elswhere. The ratio remains similar. Only 2,000 difference. 216.78.55.88 (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Going back one generation, a person has two parents; two generations, four grandparents; in 10 generations, 1024 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents; in 20 generations, 1,048,576 ancestors. (The actual number of unique ancestors is slightly lower, because some individuals may be ancestors in multiple ways, for example, the mother and father might have the same grandfather as each other.) If you go back 700 years, the numbers exceed the population of the world at that time.

The "ratio" mentioned above would double in each generation. If there was one Charlemagne is a world population of 300,000, half of whom were female, then only 150,000 were male. Therefore, 1 in 150,000 children would have Charlemagne as a father. Assume 1/2 were each gender, so 1 in 150,000 males and 1 in 150,000 females had him has a father. In the following generation, 1 in 150,000 children would have a son of Charlemagne as a father and 1 in 150,000 children would have a daughter of Charlemagne as a mother, so a total of nearly 1 in 75,000 children would have Charlemagne as a grandfather. (The actual figure is slightly different, because my calculation counts children whose parents were both children of Charlemagne twice.) As this progesses, to 37,500, then 18,750, then 9,375, etc.; it takes fewer than 10 generations to get down to a ratio of 1 in 1. Since 742 to the present is over 1260 years, and the average generation is much shorter than 126 years, the ratio should be fairly close to 1 in 1 for whites of Western European ancestry.

71.109.155.112 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• More obscure lines of descent were, by definition, likely to have been lost and de Ruvigny's estimate seems very inaccurate. - 'seems' is inappropriate. Source it.

• Others have suggested that as many as 80% of people of English descent are descended from the Plantagenets whilst the English geneticist Professor Stephen Jones estimates 25%. 'Others have suggested...' really, who? 80% claim needs sourcing, as does Jones claim (I have left it in for the moment because it does at least purport to attribute the claim. But it needs to be properly cited).

I'm going to remove these. They need to be sourced before they can be allowed back in. Michaelsanders 19:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Those parts which are acceptable in Wikipedia will be readded when cited; however, blatant opinion/Original Research will stay out. Michaelsanders 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the sourced information which I have removed - you, or someone, needs to explain how much of the information the citation refers to, and to then put it in a relevant context.

• Several descendents of European Royal families who live ordinary lives today are descendents from nobles who were born on the wrong side of the blanket, meaning they were illegitimate children. Since, illegitimate children could not marry into other royal families because being bastards left them undesirable matches, these children had to marry upper class or middle class families from their own country. <Eleanor Herman. Sex with Kings.>

• It should be noted that not all of these noble and middle class families were descendents of the Plantagenets. Claiming the nobles and royals were the only ones to survive the Middle Ages, is incorrect. Although the Middle Ages were a rough time for anyone who was a peasant, royals and nobles were not exempt from the hardships either, regardless of their status. As humans have been known to survive in terrible conditions, many of the peasants did survive this time and had children. By the 17th century these people had through the centuries, by various means, risen to become some of the middle class of the Kingdom of England. Some married into upper class houses of royal descent and some did not. <Family Research. Uniting Families.>

Thankyou. Michaelsanders 20:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this article was, and still is, too Eurocentric, in particular Anglocentric. How about (sourced) references to royal descent from other royal families - the Chinese or Japanese, for example, or Meso-American? Michaelsanders 20:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes

Yeah it does. A majority of people who came to Virginia were English but there were a few settlers from other countries like France and Spain. The Settlers in France settled in the Canada. The Spain settled in areas like South America. The Virginia Colonist were definitly descended from the Plantagents and some of England's royalty. I am living prove of that many of them were my ancestors and all my sources state that. The few from other countries I am not sure. I am in the process of finding more information about the settlers in France who came to Quebec to see if they came from any Frence royalty.

Right then. So the best thing to do is to find sources regarding other immigration - I would imagine French immigrants to be predominantly descended from French royalty **[rather than English royalty]**, for example, but it needs to be sourced.

Of course, since Plantagenet descendants would also have the descent of those families who married into the Plantagenets (e.g. Capetians, Castilians), these families would also be in the ancestry of the colonists. Michaelsanders 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the French probably did. It is possible.

I changed the title to The Virginia Colonist of America. If we start looking for other groups we should separate the paragraphs.

Yes, the ones that were descended from the Plantagenets would definitly have all their ancestors (Castilians. Capetians and what not) in their blood as well. I just said Plantagenets as a whole because if you say them then the ancestors come along with them. RosePlantagenet 19:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, more precisely, because the most recent royal ancestor was a Plantagenet. Michaelsanders 19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It just seemed easier than naming them all. >.< For the very early Virginia Colonists it was definitly the Plantagents. Now, in some cases some could descended from the Tudors but that was rare. Again, I do not mean to bring my ancestry up, however, it is easy to use as an example. On my grandmother's side, her father's family is descended from Mary Tudor, Henry VII daughter. I did not add that in the article because from my studies very few families had Tudor blood. If they had Tudor or Stuart it was long after the early Virgina colonist. RosePlantagenet 19:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculously Eurocentric

I stopped in to see how this page was doing after it's recent AN/I stuff, and I realized, this page is absurdly Eurocentric, and beyond that, Anglo-Centric. Please expand the article to include other nations of Europe, as well as Asian Royalty, African royalty, and heck, anywhere else royalty can be found. ThuranX 14:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Er...I did say exactly that above. Unfortunately, I haven't found anything appropriate thus far on other cultures. Michaelsanders 14:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering the article has just been redone and still in the process of reconstruction, I do not see how it is being Eurocentric. If you happen to have tons of information on the subject of royalty in other countries beyond Europe then by all means put it in the article. The reason why at this moment there is a lot of information about European Royalty descent is because there is so much on the subject. Now, of course, if any editor has information about other royalty in Africa, Asia and so on, then it should be added in the article. That was the point. Since the fighting is over that does benefit the article. RosePlantagenet 16:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The sections are just examples. The general principles that define descendents of royalty apply to all royal families around the world, no matter the country. RosePlantagenet 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourced Information

It nice to see this page begin fixed up, however, I would ask other editors to not remove or reword sourced information, inorder to support your own edits. RosePlantagenet 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because information is sourced does not mean it is untouchable. I removed some sourced statements from the American royal descent section because they were Anglo- and Virginia-centric, and because the one about the interbreeding of Virginia families, which is not really true to any real extent, does not relate to Royal descent. --Michael White^T·C 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove sourced information. Especially, when it does not agree with your point of view. Which you have done. Do not remove my information first and then proceed to give me song and dance about discussing information before removing it. When you clearly saw no problem with removing mine before discussing it first. Third, I did not remove any of your information. I only added my information back in originally that was sourced and tried to fix up the flow of the article. You, however, removed that information a second time. I am willing to compromise and leave your information because it was sourced accordingly, however, I am re-adding in mine because it is a key point. I hope you will discuss it first before removing it. I would hate to turn this article into an edit war, just because one editor feels they can intimate others with the "do not remove information threat", when they are the one's guilty of it.

Finally, I find it insulting to listen to someone say that the Virginia families intermarrying is not true. I am a descent of some of those Virginia families with royal descent. Some of my ancestors with royal descent did intermarry with families around the areas with which they settled. Some of those families had royal descent, as well. I suppose you are now telling myself and anyone else, who has ever been able to trace our families, that it is all one big lie. Please make an effort to educated yourself before making such a bold and incorrect statement. RosePlantagenet (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you should indent your talk page messages with a ":" at the beginning to enhance the readability of the discussion.

First, there is no policy against removing sourced information. I was making a good faith edit to improve the article, and it involved removing sourced information because I did not think it fit well or was relevant. Thank you for being willing to compromise, and I am fine with the current state of the article.

I did not say that claims of Virginia families intermarrying are not true. I said it is not relevant to discussing royal descent. How does whether Virginia families intermarried have anything to do with royal descent? I suppose it is relevant, in fact, because as the generations go forward, if there is interbreeding, the proportion of people with royal descent will increase. It is not relevant if the intermarrying families both have royal descent, which I thought was what you were talking about, or if the effect of interbreeding on the proportion with royal descent is not explained, which you hadn't, and I did.--Michael White^T·C 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

US Presidents

It says 27 of 42 presidents have royal lineage (supposidly). There are 48 Presidents currently. Could someone check the source? YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reagan was the 40th, the first Bush was #41, Clinton was #42, the second Bush was #43, Obama is #44. There are not 48.

71.109.155.112 (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Society of

I have removed the reference to the insignificant Society. If it can achieve a few thousand Googs then maybe. But at the moment, we are serving to drive most of their traffic and we can't have that.Wjhonson (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Royal Descendents Of Wentworth And Windsor

Is It True That People Who Descent From The Wentworth Of England And Whom Have Owned/Own Wentworth Castle In Barnsley Yorkshire England United Kingdom Could Be Actively Related To The Windsor Of England But Distances Relationship Of Being Ancestrally To Of Being Vital Of Whom Of Royal Family Of Buckingham And Windsor Castle? LORJE SALAMONSKI (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Fantasy vs Reality

" At the same time, however, waves of post-colonial immigrants from other countries decreased the percentage who have royal descent."

This asinine comment wraps up the US section, and is of course unsourced. The entire section misleads genealogically naive readers into thinking that only "British colonists" had traceable royal ancestry to "Medieval kings". Let's just think about this in context for a moment: Charlemagne has upwards of a billion living descendants. This is hardly surprising if you're familiar with the basics of genealogical 'math' (arithmetic) and know how to calculate the number of direct ancestors across generations (with Charlemagne we're talking about ~40 generations, so at some point you'll have to control for inbreeding). Basically, anyone with European ancestry descends from Charlemagne[1].

But it gets worse -the statement quoted above erroneously implies that later immigrants (19th & early 20th Century) are less likely to have a direct link to royals. Outside the UK, the US received the most immigrants from Ireland (which was part of the UK for most of its immigration history), Germany and Italy. As far as Southern Italian descendants go, you're going to find Medieval connections to Normans, Charlemagne and other Frankish kings; ditto for German descendants, and for the Irish there are at least half a dozen Medieval families with known royal ancestry who are basically in every Irish person's family tree at some point. All it takes is one marriage over 1000+ years to have a direct line to a Medieval royal.

This section needs more and better sourcing, and there may even be notability issues given how common "royal ancestry from Medieval kings" really is. I mean, good luck finding any significant number of Americans who descend from any royals who lived in the last ~200 years. I've encountered at least one Wiki article of an American celebrity claiming she descends from King Edward I of England, as if this is a big deal. Pretty much everyone with any ancestry from the British Isles (UK and/or Ireland) descends from Edward I -there are uber drivers and people who pick up garbage for a living who descend from Edward I. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)