I recently ran across this old Carl Zimmer blog post while searching for something else: Charlemagne's DNA and our Universal Royalty. He discusses a 1999 paper by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale, who mathematically modeled how far you go back in Europe before, in fact, every European living today is a descendant of anyone who was living at that time (and had descendants). His answer is: around 1000 years. This number has been confirmed with more recent studies on DNA, as Zimmer discusses. In other words, if you are of European ancestry, then you're pretty much guaranteed to be a descendant of Charlemagne.
This reminds me of another example of wide-spread genes that we frequently mention in Anthropology classes: Genghis Khan. As Razib Khan (ironically, no relation) explains in this blog post, 1 in 200 men worldwide are thought to be direct male-line descendants of the Mongol leader. This means that his Y-chromosome has been passed on to millions of people throughout the world, and that doesn't even count his genetic contribution to many more descendants who do not have a direct male-line connection.
Of course, if you narrow the region, then you don't have to go back as far to find common ancestors. I recently read a fascinating biography of the English King Edward III, at the end of which the historian, Ian Mortimer, states that most people of English ancestry are probably descendants of the king, who died in 1377.
This isn't the place for a discussion of genetics (we teach full courses on that)*, but I'll just quickly state: A) there's no reason to believe that "kingly" genes are any better or worse than "peasant" genes. Although genes are important in understanding how we interact with our environment, kings - even highly successful ones - are made through a combination of luck and learning, rather than genetic superiority; and B) even if Genghis Khan, Edward III, or Charlemagne had "supergenes", their very ubiquity shows how diluted they must be. I don't mean diluted in the sense of "mixed with inferior genes", rather that you have 2048 ancestors in your 11th-great-grandparent's generation (which is how far back you need to go to get to King Edward), making you only 1/2048th King Edward. You, that is, and millions of your closest relatives.
It's not surprising that in the United States, many genealogists are obsessed with finding ties back to royalty. This is such an obsession, in fact, that many unsubstantiated family legends about royal links have found their way into publications and are perpetuated through the internet and inexperienced genealogists. To avoid these traps, the gold standard of royal ancestry is to trace your family tree back to one of the well-researched "gateway ancestors" whose links to the royal family are well established. (Again, we're probably all descended from royalty somewhere, if you go back far enough, but these gateway ancestors are links to documented royal lines.)
Unsurprisingly, research on gateway ancestors has focused on links to European, and particularly English, royalty. Of course, kingdoms existed by at least 6,000 years ago and were found all over Eurasia, Africa, and Central/South America, but the information we have on non-European lineages is sparse and overlooked. The gateway ancestors who are vouched for by various genealogical societies are mostly English or French colonists in the early years of British colonization of North America.
I only have one "gateway ancestor" that I know of: Thomas Ligon (or Lygon). In addition to being a gateway ancestor to the English royals, he is a gateway ancestor to the Magna Carta barons (that is, he is descended from one or more of the men who signed the Magna Carta). This is unsurprising, since once you can document a link to the Plantagenet line, you're pretty much tied in to most royal and aristocratic families in Europe.
Thomas Lignon was born in England in 1624. At the age of 16, he traveled to the Jamestown settlement in the company of his second cousin, Sir William Berkeley, who had been appointed governor of Virginia. Lignon made his fortune, and his home, in Henrico County, Virginia, where his daughter Johan (or Joan) married Robert Hancock. My great-grandmother, Vera Hancock, was Johan and Robert's 6xgreat-grandaughter.
Lignon had good family connections. His gubernatorial cousin, Sir William, was a favorite of King Charles II. William's older brother, John, was made the 1st Baron Berkeley for his support of the king. Because the Lignon family was well-off and tied into the aristocracy, their lineage is well known. (Kings and peasants have equally long family trees, it's just that nobody bothered to write down the family trees of peasants until near-universal literacy allowed the peasants to do it for themselves.) Lignon's most recent royal ancestor is Edward Plantagenet, aka King Edward III (see, Dr. Mortimer was right!).
Edward's close relationship with his wife, Philippa of Hainault, led to eleven children. His third son was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who was never king himself, but whose son and grandsons were kings. John of Gaunt had two state marriages, the first to Blanche of Lancaster, whose children included King Henry IV and Queen Philippa of Portugal. Blanche died of plague in 1369, and John of Gaunt's second state marriage was to Constance of Castile, Their only child, Catherine, became queen of Castile. Constance died in 1394, but their marriage was not loving. By 1373, John of Gaunt had begun a long-term relationship with his daughters' tutor, Katherine Swynford (born Roet). Katherine was an educated woman, married to an English knight, and her older sister, who served as a lady in waiting to Queen Philippa, was married to the poet Geoffrey Chaucer. John and Katherine had four children out of wedlock before they were forced apart, for political reasons, in 1381. Their attachment must have been strong and sincere, however, because after the death of Constance of Castile, the couple married.
John of Gaunt legitimized his four children with Katherine after the marriage. These children took the last name "Beaufort" after the castle where they were born. They were close to their half-brother, King Henry IV, and took up positions of importance in his government. Although the Beauforts had originally been barred from inheriting the throne (despite being legitimated), eventually their claim became pivotal to the War of the Roses. The Beaufort family's descendants include King Edward IV, as well as the monarchs of both the Tudor and Stuart lines.
John and Katherine's second son was Cardinal Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester. Cardinal Henry served as one of the regents for his nephew, Henry VI, and may have played an important role behind the scenes in the witchcraft trial of St. Joan of Arc. For purposes of our family, however, the most important aspect of his life was an affair with Alice FitzAlan, Countess of Arundel, which led to a daughter, Joan Beaufort, whose descendants include Thomas Ligon.
I should note that there is controversy over Joan Beaufort. It seems quite clear that Joan Beaufort was the natural daughter of Cardinal Henry. She married Sir Edward Stradling, who was advanced by Cardinal Henry and who was mentioned in his will. It is not as clear that Joan's mother was Alice FitzAlan, however.
One last note: since Thomas Ligon was a descendant of Edward III, he was also a descendant of Queen and Saint Margaret of Scotland, whose daughter, Matilda, married Henry I, the oldest son of William the Conqueror. My little Maggie, then, is a direct descendant of her name saint.
_______
* If you'd like to read an interesting take on genetics, I highly suggest this oldie but goodie by Robert Sapolsky. I assign it in my classes.
* If you'd like to read an interesting take on genetics, I highly suggest this oldie but goodie by Robert Sapolsky. I assign it in my classes.
No comments:
Post a Comment