RE: Most recent common ancestors
- From: cannalonga@xxxxxxxx ("MLS")
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:57:23 +0000 (UTC)
Hi Leo!
I agreed whit you. It could be difficult to mention one royal or noble
who does not have any commoners as ancestor.... But I think the
discussion here is the opposite: exists trillions of living commoners
WHIT royal or noble ancestor...? Very different assert don't think?
One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least) as
noble. The opposite if is a female noble that marry a commoner. So, this
immediately cut 50 por cent of (possibly) inter class marriages...
-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:38 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to
know. Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@xxxxxxxx>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
> Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
> that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner
> ancestors in there tree .... instead of the opposite!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WJhonson@xxxxxxx [mailto:WJhonson@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
> To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
>
>
> In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> cannalonga@xxxxxxxx writes:
>
> << As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages
> exist. But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example
> like this...
>>>
>
> It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
> So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction,
> peter-out pretty quickly. We *just* had an example posted where Queen
> Elizabeth herself has this problem in a very short time period. She
> had commoner ancestors as well as royal
> ones. How do you explain this?
> Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
> generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one
was
> a commoner. Or
> at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> --
> Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:
> http://www.email.it/f
>
> Sponsor:
> Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
> Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1
>
>
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
America, Africa, Australia, Asia...con Email Phone Card chiami ovunque spendendo meno di una telefonata interurbana
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2688&d=16-1
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Most recent common ancestors
- From: lostcooper
- Re: Most recent common ancestors
- From: "Leo van de Pas"
- Re: Most recent common ancestors
- References:
- Re: Most recent common ancestors
- From: "Leo van de Pas"
- Re: Most recent common ancestors
- Prev by Date: Re: Most recent common ancestors
- Next by Date: DNA - Can you enlighten?
- Previous by thread: Re: Most recent common ancestors
- Next by thread: Re: Most recent common ancestors
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|