Is the Queen of England genetically related to William the Conqueror?
October 12, 2004 2:45 AM   Subscribe

Is the Queen of England genetically related to William the Conqueror?
posted by Pretty_Generic to Grab Bag (15 answers total)
 
Yes, Liz II's name is included on one of the pages at this site which attempts to list as many as possible of the descendents of William the Conqueror. By the way, I never knew, until I read it here, that 'William was the illegitimate son of Robert I, duke of Normandy and Arletta, a tanner's daughter. He is sometimes called "William the Bastard"'.
posted by misteraitch at 4:28 AM on October 12, 2004


Yes.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:35 AM on October 12, 2004


It certainly appears so (huge but difficult to read family tree from Alfred the Great to present day).

This tree doesn't actually seem to have William the Conquerer on it, but it does have Henry I Beuclerk, his son (9 generations from the very top). Then it goes right down to present day.
posted by Jimbob at 4:37 AM on October 12, 2004


Ooo, Civil_Disobedient's chart is much easier to understand.
posted by Jimbob at 4:37 AM on October 12, 2004


Awesome, thanks!
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:57 AM on October 12, 2004


It appears that since many people believe Edward IV was not actually the son of Richard, Duke of York, the only certain geneological link back to the Conqueror is through John of Gaunt's children with his mistress Catherine Swynford. The kids were legitimised after John married Catherine.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:28 AM on October 12, 2004


So how is she related to Kevin of Bacon?
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:29 AM on October 12, 2004


Her Bacon number is 3.

(you asked!)
posted by mkultra at 8:47 AM on October 12, 2004


I would have thought that most people in the UK (and thus, Australia, USA and Canada, etc) are genetically related to William the Conqueror. Going back that many generations, the question doesn't really make all that much sense. Going back 50 generations, I have 1.12x10^15 ancestors. Even allowing for duplicates etc, the chances are that everyone in the UK in 1066 who had children is one of them.
posted by salmacis at 9:04 AM on October 12, 2004


That's the Queen Mother, dumbass. The Queen has a Bacon number of 2. :P
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:06 AM on October 12, 2004


Very interesting salmacis
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:10 AM on October 12, 2004


An old mefi post of mine relevant to salmacis's point.
posted by vacapinta at 9:24 AM on October 12, 2004


So George Bush is descended from Muhammad.


That takes some thinking.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:33 AM on October 12, 2004


Or, in particular, this link:

Quite likely the entire world is descended from the Ancient Egyptian royal house, c. 1600 BC.

Quite likely almost everyone in the world descends from Confucius, c. 500 BC.

Quite likely everyone in the West descends from Charlemagne, c. 800 AD.
posted by vacapinta at 9:37 AM on October 12, 2004


Geez, I dislike her even worse now. Bet she's part Cromwell, too.

Yeh, A Short History of Nearly Everything reckons all our bods have some of Shakespeare's recycled atoms, too, not to mention we all get a little incestuous a few generations or so back.
posted by Shane at 9:47 AM on October 12, 2004


« Older Leg Cramps   |   Cheap Birthday Activities in Portland, Oregon Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.