http://flowingdata.com/2013/03/07/six-degrees-of-francis-bacon-a-17th-century-social-network/

n/t

Along with our very own Marie Anntoinette!

You can be certain of the mother, but not necessarily the father.

You know how, back in the days of the 'royal blood lines' and such, heirs were encouraged to wed their cousins, preferably like 2nd or 3rd cousins, but 1st cousins was acceptable as long as the related parents of the two cousins were of the opposite sex. Reason being, when the related parents of two cousins are the same sex, there exists the biological (although highly distasteful) possibility that what you THOUGHT was your cousin ... is actually your half-brother/sister. So it was discouraged for 1st cousins to wed unless their related parents were of opposite sex, just in case ... because half-brother/sister marrying was regarded as being 'too close', even in the more primitive era of kings and queens and such.

And did Romney qualify?
Or how about Al Gore, John Kerry?

Just curious.

Forbes family. Gore has royal lineage as well (England). No idea about Romney ..

Probably anyone with any amount of white WASP blood is related in some incredibly indirect way to a 12th century Plantagenet.

So, yeah, Gore and Kerry probably also can be traced, I'd guess.

Plus his father's Jewish side was from Britain, and who knew how those Plantagenets got around. Actually, Goldwater was an Episcopalian, by religion, though he had half Ashkenazic blood. Like John Kerry, whose paternal grandfather and grandmother were Jewish immigrants to this country (though he claims not to have known about it).

. . . I traced my lineage back to Charlemagne (he's my 39th great grandfather). But there are probably millions upon millions of people out there who share that ancestry.

...that's all that matters to him......

Or did you mean this one?



I guess it kinda looks like Romney. Doesn't pollute as much.

genealogy work for anyone never mind a twelve year old.

I hope she gets to meet the President, after all she's his 18th cousin.

especially if Michelle hears about this.

Did I miss that?

If so, I have to say, I've had a rough morning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okay

I was reading a small town Michigan paper from 1962 and noticed they
mentioned the city commission "okehed" an ordinance. I had to look at that
for a minute to figure out they meant OK'd or Okayed.

I prefer that etymology, but sadly the facts seem to favor that idiotic "oll keerect" travesty

The term OK was started in Boston and NYC by the Democratic Party in the election of Van Buren. Took off from that point, was heard by people in the South who had previously heard the Cherokee version and the two reinforced each other.

Please note, the Cherokee were an "Iroquoian" tribe, but NOT a member of the Five and later Six Nations of the Iroquois of Upper New York State. The Hurons, Susquehannock and the Neutrals are three Iroquoian nations that were NEVER part of the Five and Later Six Nations of the Iroquois.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquoian_languages

There is also the legend of the 12 nations of the Iroquois, that federation included the Hurons, Susquehannock and the Neutrals, in addition to the six nations, which were and are the Cayuga, Mohawk, The Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca and the Tuscarora tribes (Tuscarora only joining after the Tuscarora war in North Carolina ended in 1718.

Tuscarora War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuscarora_War

More recent research has indicted that the Hurons are the remains of up to 25 tribes of Iroquoian speaking tribes along the St Lawrence, who ended up being killed off by disease AND the fight between them (allied with the French in Quebec) AND the Five Nations (allied with the Dutch in New Amsterdam and Albany, then with the English out of New York City and Albany) in the 1500s (Before the Tuscarora joined the Five Nations to make them the Six Nations). Yes the 1500s, Champlain after founding Quebec in 1608 could NOT find any of the Tribes Cariter had reported in the 1530s. Cariter had also supported these Iroquoian Speakers against the Five Nations by fighting with them against the Five Nations (and then using his guns against the attacking Five Nation Tribe of the Seneca). Cariter then refused to sell guns to their allies, while the Five Nations were able to obtain guns from the Dutch (THrough this is more a 1600 development).

One of the problems for these Iroquoian tribes who were NOT among the Five Nations is that in the 1500s you had a world wide deterioration in the growing of crops due to a shorter growing season caused by the Little Ice Age. The Five Nations were in an area where corn could still be grown between 1500 and 1800, but Canada was being to cold and to short a growing season for corn (The French would bring in Wheat and Rye, both can be grown in the shorter growing Seasons caused by the Little Ice Age, thus you saw the replacement of these Iroquoian Speakers with French speakers from France itself starting in the 1600s).

Thus the legendary confederation of 12 tribes may have been an traditional confederation against the Five Nations that was destroyed by the Five Nations (Along with the Neutrals, whose name came from the fact they were Neutral in the fights between the Five Nations and the Hurons, till the Hurons were destroyed).

Present day Wyandot Native Americas claim descendant from the remains of both the Hurons and Petun, two tribes who spoke an Iroquoian language, but allied with the French against the Five Nations:

More on the Petun:
the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tionontate

More on the Wyandot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyandotte_Nation



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Thus, Quebec may have become marginal for Corn after 1500, leading to famine, which in turn permitted higher death rates due to the increase in European Diseases introduced as Europe and North American became more more interconnected after 1492.

Basically the Little ice Age, became WORSE after 1500, peaked about 1650, then went down slightly (no where NEAR the level even of 1500 let alone 1300) then peaked again about 1800. This can be seen in the price for WHEAT (a crop much more tolerate of Cold then is Corn) in the Netherlands between 1300 and 1900:


http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/determining_climate_record.html

In many ways, the expansion of the Viking after 1000 AD into Iceland, Greenland and "Wineland" could be explained by the general warming that permitted wheat and rye to be grown in both Greenland and Iceland. The subsequent collapse of Greenland can be explained by the temperatures getting to cold for Rye, then to cold for Cattle to graze (Studies done on Norse Bodies in Greenland indicate they went from a Cattle based died to one of almost all Fish just before Greenland was abandoned after 1405)

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/end_of_vikings_greenland.html

A similar situation could have been occurring in Quebec, the area was getting to cold for Corn, They had no access to Wheat, Rye or even Potatoes (all of which can grow in colder climates then Corn).

In simple terms, OK may have been a known term BEFORE the 1830s, but among people who dealt with Native Americas of the Iroquoian language group. This would make the term NOT unheard of among Americans on the Frontier, but RARE even among such people (and given the dominance of the Iroquois a term that may have been known to Native America Tribes of other languages, thus usable when dealing with non speakers of their language). The use of the term for an Election would have brought the term out of its previous use, i.e. to be used among WHITES, not just when dealing with Native Americas and once in common usage it stayed.

Thus it could be BOTH, given how wide spread the Iroquois were if you include the Iroquoian language speakers not just the Six Nations.

For more on the destruction done by the Six Nations see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars

said that Van Buren was Burr's illegitimate son. So he's probably a 'royal' as well.

In fact, Burr, who was a rake in real life, took in the two boys whom he'd fathered out of wedlock and raised them as his wards. He never made any similar gestures to the son of Abraham and Maria Van Buren.

Vidal often peddles in rumors in his novels in order to make them more entertaining. He's a great writer, but not a good historical source.

I have read no historical background on O.K., and don't know the source of Vidal's rumor.

But satire-wise, to make the claim 'Burr is Van Buren's dad' isn't funny. It does tend to fit into the o.p.'s point that all our other presidents are of 'royal' blood. And Van Buren was our first N.Y. prez, so Burr might not have raised and supported O.K., but could have provided invaluable support for him with NY state's economic and political elite.

Not a fact, just a puzzle piece that seems like it fits in a way that makes sense to me.

another at least on one side. I'm related to 3 presidents on my mom's side.

Which traces back to the good king of course.(if he was good, don't know)

When I get one of those forms with "Race," I put in "Human," and should they ask Ethnicity, I put down Heinz 57 Varieties.

All one race from one planet. Why can't we just get along?

The water is the same water that was here from the beginning..

a blob from Planet Cygnus X9!

King John was not a good man –
He had his little ways.
And sometimes no one spoke to him
For days and days and days.
And men who came across him,
When walking in the town,
Gave him a supercilious stare,
Or passed with noses in the air –
And bad King John stood dumbly there,
Blushing beneath his crown.

King John was not a good man,
And no good friends had he.
He stayed in every afternoon…
But no one came to tea.
And, round about December,
The cards upon his shelf
Which wished him lots of Christmas cheer,
And fortune in the coming year,
Were never from his near and dear,
But only from himself.

King John was not a good man,
Yet had his hopes and fears.
They’d given him no present now
For years and years and years.
But every year at Christmas,
While minstrels stood about,
Collecting tributes from the young
For all the songs they might have sung,
He stole away upstairs and hung
A hopeful stocking out.

King John was not a good man,
He lived his life aloof;
Alone he thought a message out
While climbing up the roof.
He wrote it down and propped it
Against the chimney stack:
“TO ALL AND SUNDRY — NEAR AND FAR –
F. CHRISTMAS IN PARTICULAR.”
And signed it not “Johannes R.”
But very humbly, “JACK.”

“I want some crackers
And I want some candy;
I think a box of chocolates
Would come in handy;
I don’t mind oranges,
I do like nuts!
And I SHOULD like a pocket-knife
That really cuts.
And, oh! Father Christmas, if you love me at all,
Bring me a big, red india-rubber ball!”

King John was not a good man –
He wrote this message out,
And gat him to his room again,
Descending by the spout.
And all that night he lay there,
A prey to hopes and fears.
“I think that’s him a-coming now,”
(Anxiety bedewed his brow.)
“He’ll bring one present, anyhow –
The first I’ve had for years.”

“Forget about the crackers,
And forget about the candy;
I’m sure a box of chocolates
Would never come in handy;
I don’t like oranges,
I don’t want nuts,
And I HAVE got a pocket-knife
That almost cuts.
But, oh! Father Christmas, if you love me at all,
Bring me a big, red india-rubber ball!”

King John was not a good man –
Next morning when the sun
Rose up to tell a waiting world
That Christmas had begun,
And people seized their stockings,
And opened them with glee,
And crackers, toys and games appeared,
And lips with sticky sweets were smeared,
King John said grimly: “As I feared,
Nothing again for me!”

“I did want crackers,
And I did want candy;
I know a box of chocolates
Would come in handy;
I do love oranges,
I did want nuts.
I haven’t got a pocket-knife –
Not one that cuts.
And, oh! if Father Christmas had loved me at all,
He would have brought a big, red india-rubber ball!”

King John stood by the window,
And frowned to see below
The happy bands of boys and girls
All playing in the snow.
A while he stood there watching,
And envying them all…
When through the window big and red
There hurtled by his royal head,
And bounced and fell upon the bed,
An india-rubber ball!

AND OH, FATHER CHRISTMAS,
MY BLESSINGS ON YOU FALL
FOR BRINGING HIM
A BIG, RED,
INDIA-RUBBER
BALL!

via A.A. Milne...

interestedly,
Bright

and i can still see the illustrations in my mind...

I bet a lot of people could find royalty/nobility in their lineage if they went back far enough.

and I am Marie of Roumania!!!

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea;
And love is a thing that can never go wrong;
And I am Marie of Romania.

Dorothy Parker, Not So Deep as a Well (1937),

Not only did English aristocrats intermarry all the time, but during the early Colonial years in North America, there was even more intermarrying. Since there were a few descendents of King John among the early colonists, pretty much anyone with some amount of European ancestry who had ancestors in North America between 1620 and the later half of the 17th century is probably related to King John... and to each other.

I've never met him. have usually been punted out of the house when he's around.

Smart girl. Throw Geology into an upheaval that kicks ass I had no idea.

we are ALL related to royalty in some way.

Still, nice job digging.

Does she do contract work? Maybe she can help me complete mine!!

My Grandpa always said he'd be King of Norway...if only...

He DID come to America because he was the second son and didn't get the farm.

trixicopper

I think most Norwegians - who have been here for a while, could be King - if only.... The old viking kings was known for their libo - and many of them had more woman and children out of wedlock than in wedlock... Who in the 1200s made for some mess - as many different families wanted the crown...

And the current royal family, is from Denmark.... Even though it is more than 100 years ago by now..

Diclotican

century, we are almost all related.

you have more direct ancestors than there have been human beings ever. Assuming three generations a century, if you go back to the 13th century, you have 281,474,976,710,656 direct ancestors.

Well then, yes. The successful and powerful were much more likely to be documented. However, most of our ancestors were more likely to the John, who empties chamberpots, and were not documented.

All my ancestors were poor Scandinavian farmers, I have no illusions that I have a single drop of royal blood in my veins. And my doctor would greatly disapprove of the amount of sodium involved in listening to someone describe how they have traced their ancestry to Francis of Assisi.

When Richard I went on his crusade, he literally sold everything he could to raise the money needed, This included land, titles, positions etc (This is how the Sheriff of Nottingham received his bad reputation, he was one of those people who bought his position from King Richard).

On top of this, Richard divided England in two and gave control to two English Bishops, who were themselves nothing short of being thieves (When King John Died, William Marshall became the regent till his son Henry III came of age, When William Marshall died, he named as regent the Papal legate, for he had complete faith that the English Bishop would make sure their and their families, not Henry III or even the Church would get the benefits of ruling England till Henry III was of age).

The Two English Bishops ran England so poorly, then Prince John had to step in and remove them (This act is often tied in with the Legends of Robin Hood, through King John's connection to the Legends of Robin Hood did not appear for another 200 years, and appears to be part of a policy to move the Legends of Robin Hood from the 1300s and the Great Peasant revolt to the troubles of King John, a name already held low and a name the Kings of England in the 1300s did not see a need to protect).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants'_Revolt

Please note, watch your history of the Peasant Revolt. The above Wikipedia article says Richard II was the cause of the Peasant Revolt, and to a degree that was true, but he also was know to protect peasants from their gentry at the same time. It was the Gentry that overthrew Henry II in 1399, due to his attempts to do reform to protect the peasants (including the first law that made it a Crime to use force or the threat of force to Evict someone, a law that stayed on the books in most states till the rewrite of criminal law starting mid 20th century, and then only transferred to be included in other sections of the Criminal Code).

Yes, the Peasant Revolt of 1381 and later King Richard's II removal on 1399 and his death in 1400 seems to also be the start of the Legends of Robin Hood. Richard II, after suppressing the Peasant Revolt, actually tried to ease the life of the Peasants (Which made him more and more unpopular with the Nobility). His policies seems to have improved his standing among the peasants. When the Nobility decided to revolt against him, they did overthrow him, but then realized how popular he was with the peasants. Given how he died and that he was secretly buried, it became common for people who wanted to revolt against the establishment to claim to be Richard II. How fearful this was to the Nobility can be seen is the law that was enforced for almost the next 100 years. The law made it a CAPITAL offense to claim to be Richard II, and it seems to have been enforced even to people who said so as a joke.

The Phase "Tumbledown Dick" used in the name of many pubs over the following centuries, it was a reference to the official cause of Richard II's Death, he fell down a flight of steps and broke his neck (What most people believed is the other story of his death, that he was thrown from the tower to his death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England

Anyway, given the problems following the death of Richard II and the subsequent War of the Roses between the two families that ruled England at that time, no one was going to tolerate any stories about Richard II nor any stories related to the 1381 Peasant revolt. Given this background, the traveling minstrels seems to have move the stories back from 1381 to 1191 and the rule of Richard I, for the stories of Robin Hood and what he did during the Peasant Revolt was popular among the peasants, but dangerous. What seems to have happened was the Mistrals took the stories of the Peasant Revolt and rewrote them to fit the reign of Richard I. King John would then be the bad guy, not the nobles. I suspect the peasants read between the lines and knew WHICH Richard the stories were about, but moving to the 1190s from the 1380s gave who ever told the story the ability to say this was an old story he learned long ago about a long ago time period. i.e. you protect yourself by making sure you have a good cover story. Old Stories about various other Robbers in Sherwood forest were merged with these stories (and Maid Marian and Friar Tuck were imported in from the May Day celebrations and stories) to make up the present Robin Hood Legends (That William Marshall, the dominate person of his age outside the Kings is NOT mentioned in the Robin Hood Legends seems to confirm that the Stories were from the 1380s but moved back to the 1190s to protect the mistrals singing the stories).

William Marshall, 1st Earl of Pembroke, the only Knight NEVER to be unhorse in joists, even at age 40 when he retired. The man King John gave his son to raise and to be regent of England at the death of King John. The person who drove out the French from England, after they had cross the Channel to assist the Barons against King John, but then refused to leave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Marshal,_1st_Earl_of_Pembroke

Now, King John had his weaknesses, but there would have been over looked at that time period and forgotten afterward except he also had raise money to get King Richard out of Austria, then broke again, at the death of Richard three months later find some way to raise money so he could hold onto the crown (He decided to hold England, he lost Normandy and Aquitaine to the French, Richard I preferred Aquitaine, John is the first post Conquest king to be buried in England). His attempts to regain Normandy and Aquitaine, after losing them due to a lack of money, caused him to become more hated in England due to his attempts to raise the money needed.

More on King John:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_England

A lot of what we know of King John is reported to us by people who disliked him, his nobles (including the churchmen) who hated how he kept after them for money, his various attempts to take back titles, lands and positions Richard I had sold etc. He had a good head for the law, and much of modern English Common Law is attributed to him, but he was willing to use any excuse to take back what Richard I had given, thus his reputation for "pettiness, spitefulness and cruelty" (Petty for using ANY reason to take something back and then being called spiteful and Cruel when he took back what Richard I had sold).

Yes, King John's biggest problem was fixing the financial problems made by Richard I, his reputation was so bad, that neither William Marshall or his son Henry III saw any benefit to saying anything else (by the time Henry III was in charge, most of the damage done by Richard I had been corrected, thus could enjoy a good relationship with his nobles).

In many ways that all but one US President can be traced to King John, shows how much good he did do, but like most true reformers fought all the way and when he was successful no one gave him credit.

to ruling themselves and when the King John wanted his power back they rebelled.

If its really true that genealogists have been handicapping themselves by ignoring the female line, this is a blockbuster.

As has been pointed out, though, we're all related, though, if we go back far enough.

To gauge whether or not she's uncovered some sort of royal conspiracy, she could compare these results with what you find with the same number of randomly-picked people (from the time period of each president). How far back to you have to go to link them all to some monarch? Do this with 30 randomly-picked samples and, if the presidents' monarch (John Plantagenet) is significantly more recent than the average, then we have a statistically significant conspiracy!

not so much with the content of the video but..

did you notice how she just called him 'obama'?

ive written a letter to 'obama'...

ive noticed more and more that people don't call him president Obama or just 'the president'...
they just say his last name...

anybody else find that annoying and disrespectful?

btw, im not saying the girl was trying to be and I applaud her for , what was undoubtedly, painstaking work of figuring these connections out...

just people in general doing that kinda tick me off..

referring to the Presidents by their last names.

not her..
just people in general doing that

This story is more than three years old.

Not that it isn't still interesting, mind you.

as the son of a semi profesional genealogist , you cannot ignore the female lines and not get very far. good one on her .my whole fam is genealogicaly minded . if u r going to ignore the female line and ure stuck . oh well.

Don't jump on me. This post is just my opinion, which I am entitled to. Thanks.

Any others who have tried and have failed, due to omitting female lines, clearly not doing their job.

Its a good opinion, allan.

in the country is gonna be after her.

Or any of the other potential 2016 candidates?

I'll have to inform my brother.

because I'm a distant cousin of Sir William Wallace (the "Braveheart" guy)

I'd be a very rich man! But then again, she'd probably take it from me.

and i went to high school with a direct descendant of robert the bruce!
tib

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2013, 02:51 AM - Edit history (1)

[center]

[/center]

that there is a secret evil lineage being passed on...

King John was evil. His older brother King Richard was noble. All the knights of ancient England were high-minded civic leaders who only took up sword against John to protest high taxes. They were loving and considerate of the peasants whom they ruled over.

Meanwhile, back in reality, King John had to raise high taxes to pay for that big crusade Richard went on. Those nobles who rose up against him treated their serfs like dirt and their rebellion looked out only for their own class interests.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that genetic connection to King John has any more ethical weight than the genetic connection of thousands of other ancestors, both kind and wicked, our presidents, both the kind and the wicked, have had. But your argument is silly.

King John was a tyrant; he was cowardly, power-hungry, greedy and licentious. So was Richard the Lion-Heart a tyrant. He was also a war criminal, even by twelfth century standards.

The King Richard of the Robin Hood legend doesn't resemble the real Richard any more than the proto-Protestant hero of Tudor mystery plays resembles the real King John.

and Harold Ickes were right all along. Well, except maybe the lizard thing.

with all these names?

are they all in one place or did she really have to go through a lot of sources?

in 1965 looking for a civil war soldier my grandfather had talked about. I soon had the immediate lines and started doing genealogy the way this young lady does it. Following various lines of interesting people. When I found myself researching family members who lived in the same area as both Abraham Lincoln and George Washington I could not resist trying to find links. It is not all that hard. Both are linked distantly in my tree and I also go back in two different son-in-law lines to Robert the Bruce and John of Gaunt. I keep them in the lines not because they are a direct link but because they give the people of those eras substance for my descendants. "Grandma are we really related to......?"

It does not surprise me that she could link these lines. I was just surprised it was John Lackland who was the common link.

Gypsy fortune teller would have gone nuts trying to tell that future.

Only a handful of states have allowed adult adoptees to have access to their own blood-lines.

Imagine being given this school assignment if you are an adoptee. =>> =>>

It sounds like she would make a great researcher.

Martin Van Buren had Dutch heritage which is why he was the oddball.