pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
May 11th, 2010 at 1:40:37 AM permalink
King Edward III was one of the few kings of England to reach his golden jubilee (50 years on throne, but one of the least well known. His reign was one of a long military peace, but of one of the worst disasters in history, the Black Death, which killed 1/4 to 1/3 of the populace. Shakespeare did not include him as a character in his plays picking up the story just after he died. He has never been depicted in a movie, except as his most famous role as an unborn child in Braveheart, the child of the flaming gay Edward II (but really the illegitimate son of William Wallace).
==============
STATISTICS PROBLEM

(1) The one thing that Edward III was famous for was his descendants, most of whom are vividly portrayed by Shakespeare. He had 9 children, with only one teenage daughter, Princess Joan, dying of the black death. Another son, Thomas of Woodstock (whose death is the starting point of the play Richard II) did not have any grandchildren. Genealogists have documented 321 great great great grandchildren. Out of King Edward's 321 3G-Grandchildren 245 were English.

In comparison Queen Victoria and Prince Albert (who also had 9 children) have 302 great great great grandchildren so far (born from 1932 to 2006). There is unlikely to be many more added to this list.

It's important to understand why we stop historical period at 5 generations. While many individual bloodlines were certainly tracked beyond 5 generations (indeed tens to hundreds of thousands of people alive can trace back to Edward III), beyond 5 generations the systematic attempt to trace every single descendant is lost as daughters increasingly marry minor husbands.

(2)By 1586 (just before Queen Elizabeth I executed Mary Queen of Scots & the Spanish Armada) it is estimated that King Edward III had 20,000 English descendants. This estimate is made by Andrew Millard of Durham University based on the known rate of the first 5 generations. Dr. Millard freely admits that this estimate has a fairly wide margin of error. Although some of the first 5 generations died as late as 1526 on average it takes another 4 generations to get from the historical generations to the year 1586.

Dr. Millard reasoned that since there was an average of 3 people in each generation of the historical period (i.e 3^5=243 which is close to 245 in part 1). He reasoned that he could extend it to 9 generations as 3^9 = 19683 . At a lower limit he reasons that 245* 2^4 = 3920 is the lowest reasonable number.

(3) From 1587 to the end of WWII (1947) the records are somewhat better. A child born in 1587 would have from 7,938 allowing for some cousin cousin marriages . During this time there were 5 sovereigns who were married to their first cousins (much higher rate than in general). The number is derived by the roughly 30 year average age when people have children, the time span of 360 years (13 generations including the initial one). The number 2^13=8192. The correction to 7938 is 8192*(63/64)^2 to account for a cousin marriage.

The population of England in 1587 was 3.8 million, in 1947 it was in the low 40 millions (I mean specifically England, not the UK). That is a factor of 11. So while each person may have over 7000 ancestors they intermarried to the point that the total population only went by a factor of 11.

(4)The 20,000 descendants of Edward III in 1587 represent 0.52% of the 3.8 million population in 1587 (20000/3800000=0.52%). So the probability of not being a descendant of Edward III was 100%-0.52% = 99.48% . So going back to 1947 the probability that a person born in 1947 is NOT a descendant of Edward III is 99.48% ^ 7938 = 1.06315E-18 (miniscule number).

(5) Dr. Millard suggest using a gross correction in the previous numbers to determine a lower bound. He reduced the 7938 ancestors by a factor of 2 (changes it to 4000). This correction would reduce the number of generations by one meaning the average age at birth is 32.7 years old. The number of Edward III's descendants in 1587 by a factor of 4 (changes it to 5000) to account for this unknown period between the historical 321 descendants and when the records got better. These two corrections should be a reliable lower bound. By this calculation the lower bound on the percentage of the population in 1947 that is not a descendant of Edward III is (1- 5000/3800000 )^ 4000 = 0.5161% .

(6) By 1977 the 4000 ancestors (lower limit) would increase to 7,916 (a little less than double to account for duplication in the family tree. So the lower limit would now be (1- 5000/3800000 )^ 7916 = 0.00297% .

(7) So the probability of a person in the present day who lives in England (with some English ancestry ) not being descended from Edward III is much less than 1%

(8) In all probability he now has over 100 million descendants (nearly double the population of England). The other 50 million descendants live primarily in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, northern Europe, Canada, and the USA.

(9) We know by records that there some people who are 26 generations from Edward II . The historical records are that the first 5 generations averaged three people per generation. If you want to do your own calculation just assume that the three people lasted as long as 7 generations and then there were at least 16 generations at a low 2 children per generation. Then 3^7*2^16 = 143 million. So over 100 million is not totally out of line.

=============

The calculation is influenced strongly by the fact that the family of Edward III was not devastated by the plague, and that he had over 300 descendants by in the 5th generation. Queen Victoria had over 300 descendants in the 5th generation (the last being born in 2006) during an era when it was a lot easier to grow to maturity than it was in 14th-165th century England. Thus the same calculation probably doesn't apply to your average ditch digger who's immediate descendants were far more likely to be wiped out by plague, disease, starvation or overwork. After the known 5 generations there is no concession to royalty or peerage. The expansion simply uses rates for the general population.

Descent from a medieval king (defined as died before 1485) is not really rare. If you can trace your family back that far it is more a statement of how good your records are, and the fact that you have someone in the last 200 years in your family that is closely related to a high ranking peer. But if you have any English in you, then you have an overwhelming probability of being descended from a Medieval King.

Descent from a Tudor, or a Stuart is very different. While there are still tens of thousands, it means you are relatively rare. Descent from a Georgian king means that you fit in the line of succession to the British throne (or you are illegitimate or Catholic). I doubt that there is a person who is legitimately descended from a Georgian king who is unaware of that fact.

=================
I can't do this myself as I have no English ancestors that I am aware of. I can only go back to the 19th century through most family lines, except for one line that goes back to the 18th century. And even that only goes back to the boat (and I know the town on the Rhine where they came from).

Princess Joan preparing for her trip where she dies of the plague
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26435
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
May 11th, 2010 at 7:03:34 AM permalink
I envision in the future a way to immediately trace your royal lineage by submitting a small tissue sample, probably a Q-tip you scrape on the inside of your cheek. This would be compared to a database of the known DNA of royalty, either from known descendants or digging up their graves and taking a direct tissue sample. Not just royalty, but to help find unknown living relatives.

In the nineties I was on a genealogy kick, and with software and web sites found and mapped about 10,000 blood relatives. The problem was most of them I had to go back about 10 generations to find a common ancestor. I now feel my goal was somewhat misdirected. It shouldn't be to go back as far as you can. Rather, it should be to find as many close living relatives as you can. Finding living family and developing new relationships I think is more valuable than the percentage of your genes that come from Queen Mary of Scots, at least to me. No disrespect to the royalty quest, I'm sure many find that interesting.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
May 11th, 2010 at 7:30:01 AM permalink
"He has never been depicted in a movie, except as his most famous role as an unborn child in Braveheart, the child of the flaming gay Edward II (but really the illegitimate son of William Wallace)."

I assume you know that Braveheart is a-historical, and Edward III was born November 1312, while William Wallace died in 1305.

Knew I had some royal blood in me :)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
May 11th, 2010 at 7:37:14 AM permalink
If Prince William announces his engagement to Kate Middleton in June the speculation about their familial relationship will increase. Since 1006 only two spouses of kings had an unknown family relationship to their husband (both were considered scandalous). One was Wallis Simpson in 1936 and the other was Anne Hyde the mother of Queens Anne and Mary. Neither woman was a queen, as Wallis married after Edward VIII abdicated, and Anne Hyde died before her husband James II became king.

They may have to dig up some of Kate's known ancestors to try to determine if they are descended from someone more famous to find the common ancestor between her and Prince William.

The above post was partly an exercise in mathematics and partly to show how many descendants could easily come from someone who died only 633 years ago.

People are always amazed that Queen Elizabeth is descended from the Prophet Mohammed and from a Chinese Emperor of the Tang dynasty, but they simply died a long time ago. Unlike you or me, a lot is known about The Queen's ancestors.

The other point is that descent from a medieval king is statistically not a big deal. It would be more shocking if you were English and not descended from one. There are a lot of people that invoke the descent of US Presidents from medieval royalty (Obama is descended from Edward I) to mean something. It means his mother was part English, and a lot of effort was put into tracing his ancestors.

The plot reveal in The DaVinci Code (I won't reveal it if someone hasn't read or seen the movie) is extremely unlikely. Over an extended period of time someone either has no descendants or millions (or billions). The only way to have a single descendant over an extended period of time is to have an oversight group that would encourage lots of children, and eventually kill off the bloodlines of the distant relatives once it was clear that one core line was established. Otherwise infertility or unfortunate death or war would kill off the bloodline or it would grow exponentially.
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
May 11th, 2010 at 8:13:29 AM permalink
The math of liniage?

I remember reading that you don't have to go back as far as you'd think, to get more descendents that were alive at the time.

Go back far enough and the family tree looks more like a complex braided rope than the March Madness Brackets that a typical family tree starts out as.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
May 11th, 2010 at 10:08:33 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

The math of liniage?

I remember reading that you don't have to go back as far as you'd think, to get more descendents that were alive at the time.

Go back far enough and the family tree looks more like a complex braided rope than the March Madness Brackets that a typical family tree starts out as.



Well 31 generations gives a 2 billion ancestors. The population of the world only hit 2 billion in 1927 . Edward III has descendants to the 26th generation and he only died in 1377.

Family trees are said to have a pedigree collapse as more and more of the same people show up in different positions in the tree. As a matter of fact a tree is pretty much a bad theoretical concept over 10 generations. But not even the queen knows everyone in her tree back to 10 generations.

The Queen is a descendant of the founder of the dynasty, William the Conqueror who conquered England in 1066. That is no surprise, but one database was able to trace 740,356 different lines of descent that vary from 24 to 39 generations. The largest number of generations would give birth on average at age 23.6 (which is probably a mostly female line. The smallest number of generations would give birth on average at age 39 (which is obviously a mostly male line).

This is probably her most famous bloodline out of the 740,356 possibilities
{ G } Name (Regal #) ; Title
{ 0 } Elizabeth II ; Queen of U.K. (1st child)
{ 1 } George VI ; King of U.K. (2nd son)
{ 2 } George V ; King of U.K. (2nd son)
{ 3 } Edward VII ; King of U.K. (1st son/ 2nd child)
{ 4 } Victoria ; Queen of U.K. (only child)
{ 5 } Edward ; Duke of Kent (4th son / 5th child)
{ 6 } George III ; King of U.K. (1st son)
{ 7 } Frederick ; Prince of Wales (1st son)
{ 8 } George II ; King of Great Britain (1st son)
{ 9 } George I ; King of Great Britain (1st son)
{ 10 } Sophia ; Electress of Hanover (12th of 13 children)
{ 11 } Elizabeth Stuart ; Queen of Bohemia (2nd child)
{ 12 } James I / James VI ; King of Great Britain (only child)
{ 13 } Mary ; Queen of Scots (only child lived to adult)
{ 14 } James V ; King of Scots (only child lived to adult)
{ 15 } Margaret Tudor ; m. James IV, King of Scots
{ 16 } Henry VII ; King of England
{ 17 } Margaret Beaufort ; married Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond
{ 18 } John Beaufort ; 1st Duke of Somerset
{ 19 } John Beaufort ; 1st Earl of Somerset (illegitimate son)
{ 20 } John of Gaunt ; 1st Duke of Lancaster (3rd son)
{ 21 } Edward III ; King of England
{ 22 } Edward II ; King of England
{ 23 } Edward I ; King of England
{ 24 } Henry III ; King of England
{ 25 } John ; King of England
{ 26 } Henry II ; King of England
{ 27 } Matilda ; Holy Roman Empress, dau of Saint Margaret
{ 28 } Henry I ; King of England
{ 29 } William I ; King of England: The Conqueroror
teddys
teddys
  • Threads: 150
  • Posts: 5527
Joined: Nov 14, 2009
May 12th, 2010 at 12:04:58 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I now feel my goal was somewhat misdirected. It shouldn't be to go back as far as you can. Rather, it should be to find as many close living relatives as you can. Finding living family and developing new relationships I think is more valuable than the percentage of your genes that come from Queen Mary of Scots, at least to me. No disrespect to the royalty quest, I'm sure many find that interesting.



Seconded. Most white American people (including myself) will hit a wall once they trace their relatives back to Europe. I got as far as the ship they came in on, the towns where they were from, and info about those towns. However, unless you go over to Europe and search the geneology records, you will not find anything beyond that, unless you have a Mayflower-type connection. That's not to say people haven't tried it, but it's hard.

I have a relative on my mother's side who is a strong proponent of the "overbreadth" rather than the "overdepth" method. He has tracked down hundreds of relatives all over the world, including South Africa, Israel and the States. He has made many new connections and kept the family in touch. In some ways this is much more useful than basic lineal genealogy.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
May 12th, 2010 at 3:16:03 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

I assume you know that Braveheart is a-historical, and Edward III was born November 1312, while William Wallace died in 1305.



The writer's argument is that he based his story on some of the legends about William Wallace and was not concerned with the historical facts. In light of the argument that most of the English are descended from Edward III, it makes it more interesting that they are also descended from William Wallace.

To be fair even Shakespeare was known to bend the facts to keep his stories more interesting. Given a twist as extreme as the above, he would tend to present it as an innuendo, and not reality. Most of his bending of facts consisted of rushing timelines to keep up the dramatic pace.

His portrayal of Richard III was in keeping with the politically correct interpretation of the Tudor era. If Richard III was not truly evil, then Henry the 7th would be a usurper to the throne, as he only had the most tenuous blood claim to the throne. Unfortunately his portrayal is so vivid, that it is almost impossible to think of Richard III as anything else but a villain.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
May 12th, 2010 at 3:32:24 PM permalink
The writer's argument is that he based his story on some of the legends about William Wallace and was not concerned with the historical facts. In light of the argument that most of the English are descended from Edward III, it makes it more interesting that they are also descended from William Wallace.

Unlikely... William Wallace had no known children :)

No problem with the bending of facts, as long as people are aware of it when watching the movie... the Battle of Stirling Bridge doesn't even feature the bridge!
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
May 12th, 2010 at 3:55:48 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

No problem with the bending of facts, as long as people are aware of it when watching the movie... the Battle of Stirling Bridge doesn't even feature the bridge!



The writers do argue that while many people are not aware of seeing a made up history, some of them look up the facts afterward. The claim is that they end up increasing the historical knowledge. (It's not my argument).

But as a business it probably doesn't matter. When Apocalypto was in the theaters, only 11% of the foreign audience was Mexican, and the American audience was over 6 times as big. One of the slave-masters quoted Dustin Hoffman's character, Ratso from Midnight Cowboy. Most Americans have never heard of the Battle of Stirling Bridge.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
May 13th, 2010 at 11:41:36 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

The writers do argue that while many people are not aware of seeing a made up history, some of them look up the facts afterward. The claim is that they end up increasing the historical knowledge. (It's not my argument).

But as a business it probably doesn't matter. When Apocalypto was in the theaters, only 11% of the foreign audience was Mexican, and the American audience was over 6 times as big. One of the slave-masters quoted Dustin Hoffman's character, Ratso from Midnight Cowboy. Most Americans have never heard of the Battle of Stirling Bridge.



That's okay, most Brits won't have heard of Manassas or Bunker Hill.

The reality of Stirling bridge is more interesting that what is portrayed in the film, and I'd have thought more dramatic (the Scots held steady to split the British force as they crossed the bridge and then charged... most of the Scottish victories were when they didn't do massed charged at a moment's notice, and most of their losses were the typical massed ranked attack against the English lines... see Battle of Bannock Burn where Scotland really did regain her independence from the English crown a few years later).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
May 13th, 2010 at 12:18:37 PM permalink
I read that though the battle might be more dramatic as a written story, that Mel Gibson decided it wouldn't look good on film. So basically he filmed the Battle of Falkirk instead.

The English took another century to refine their skills for the Battle of Agincourt. The longbow was almost the bazooka of it's day.

It is my understanding that the song Flowers of the Forest commemorates all of the war dead in Britain, even though the battle of Flodden field was the English against the Scots (with the Scots taking the worst of it).
  • Jump to: