Edward 3rd of England approximately 100,000,000 + descendants !!!

Question

This is not a question as such, but very informative. There seems to be a lot of questions relating to 'am I descended from Edward 3rd etc or this dna test or what ever suggests I have common ancestors as some king etc' then you should read the attached link. As for me, and I have 59% Great British ancestry and 41% Western European ancestry that includes 7 convicts and 5 free settlers (I'm in Australia) the only 2 ancestors from these 12 (2 of the 5 free settlers) that I have been able to trace back, both go back to Edward 3rd, one though the Scottish aristocracy via James 1st and Joan Beaufort and the other though the English aristocracy via the Bedingfelds. So the statistics are certainly true for me. In another article I also read that all the people alive in Great Britain in the year 1000 are all ancestors of every person living today that have predominantly Great British ancestry. I hope this link helps to clarify some Edward 3rd questions.  Chances of being an Edward 3rd descendant

Comments

my name is melissa lynn wolford i seen in the pickaway co and morrow county my grandparts are looking for us..

we are the bales infints

my brother troy brain wolford

arthur edison wolford father

ohio shelby d wolford woodrow bales brenda sturgill

Answer 1

Yes I've seen that analysis before and I don't find it convincing at all. It totally fails to model the degree of overlap in ancestors and assumes each ancestor being an Edward descendant is an independent random event.

One of my planned retirement projects is to build some demographic models and see if I can demonstrate that NOT everyone is in fact likely to be a descendant of Edward.

Comments

I'm going to agree and call this article almost "junk science."  This sentence alone evokes a sense of incredulity on my part:

"It is therefore safe to follow Wachter in ignoring marriages between cousins other than first cousins, as including them is a lot of calculation which will only reduce the average number of ancestors in 1587 by a fraction of a percent..."

"Ignore other than 1st cousin marriages?"  If I have a 3rd "double cousin," meaning that now I have 30 ggg-great grandparents instead of 32, I have two fewer 3x great grandparents. Taking that back each generation:

4x 4 less
5x 8 less
6x 16 less
7x 32 less
8x 64 less
9x 128 less
10x 256 less

if I have MULTIPLE shared 2nd cousins, 3rd cousins, etc - the number of my ancestors shrinks by the thousands in 10 generations.  By 15 generations, I may have 25,000 fewer ancestors.  And this is only counting those in the first generations - with each subsequent generation sharing other cousin connections, the pedigree collapse accelerates.

This article leaves out a huge bit of data that very well could topple the whole premise of the paper.

---

Even given pedigree collapse, the number of ancestors is going to be huge. And don't forget that the country's population shrinks in exactly the same way as you go back, hence the overlaps.

It would be great to see a computer-generated model, though, so we could get a feel for how it might work in practical terms. All I know is that I've found, if I can get even one line in a pedigree reliably back to say the 16th century, I can usually get it to at least Edward I. But the ones I've worked on have all been with all British parentage for at least 3 generations back and usually much longer.

---

I thought I'd put it out there as there always seems to be someone asking about Edward 3rd. I'm open to any other analysis especially as this study is nearly ten years old.

Maybe this needs to worked through with a group of expert genealogists together with a group of expert mathematicians/statisticians.

The stats that are definitely different for me are the average generation gap of 30years and the average number of children. I gave a great grandfather who has 20 siblings from a father who had 5 siblings, this is typical for about 4 or 5 generations of my Australian ancestors, most are 6 to 14 or 15 during the 1800s and early 1900s. And with a fairly low mortality rate. My English ancestors from the aristocracy have large numbers of children with a moderately higher mortality rate. Also my ancestors seem to be near the tail of large families, often out of the second or third wife. I have a at least five or six 50 year gaps ie father's over 50 and then they croak it literally a couple years later. Edward 3rd is my 17th and 18th great grandfather. My grandmother has him as her 15th and 16th great grandfather, 15 through her mother and 16 though her father, ie she had this ancestry through both her parents, I would have thought that to be fairly unique as she was born in Australia in 1910. I'm born in 1957.

So in my case this study seems very conservative. Maybe that's how I get the double with only 59% English heritage, the 41% being Western European, which I think is fairly same-ish genetically, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not sure what this would make my grandmother in regards to a cousin of the Queen. I'm not that savvy on working out the distant cousins thing, but if I posted a photo of her the likeness to the Queen is uncanny, but could be coincidental.

Mind you, with royal ancestors though both her father and mother, she probably isn't that far behind the royal pretender, Harry since he probably isn't on the list that Queen might keep in private .. lol .. sorry if that offends, but my little bit of royal dna objects to Harry getting the free ride, he's been down here just recently. I should have got him with my sword while I had the chance .. its an old family issue that needs sorting .. lol.

I'd like to see his DNA. I think the royals know this and that is why they didn't have a problem with him marrying a commoner, they know he'll never be King come hell or high water, and now it is guaranteed that his prodigy won't either.

Anyhow I'm always interested in the on going am I or aren't I thing with royality. Cheers Mark Hutchinson.

---

Well this is not the only such discussion and of course population geneticists have a whole field of articles on such dynamics which of course apply to most animals. ("Pedigree collapse" is a term from such discussions.) 

I am not sure many of us can add much. I think it is better to go find the scientific articles first in any case, before we make ourselves look silly.

What we do know for sure is that in any inter-breeding population, for any ancestor who still has living descendants, there will come a point when all people in the living population descend from that ancestor. 

It is only a question of when, and it is obvious that knowing exactly when is not easy for anyone to do, but also not really important. People seem to think that by expressing guesses and feelings that Edward III is a little too recent, that they are making an important contribution to science. 

Secondly, because this applies to all ancestors, each one of them with surviving descendants will eventually hit this point one by one. So from this we can conclude that if we go back in time far enough we will get to a point where Edward and EVERY single person who was alive and still has a descendant is an ancestor of everybody alive in the same population today.

Thirdly, these points are moving quickly. A generation ago the last common ancestor of all English people might have lived around 1000 (just one rough guess you sometimes hear), but now he or she will be much more recent.

Again, it is only a question of how far back you have to go. It applies to the population of the whole world just as much as to one island. Various authors have played with the models and generally speaking the results tend to surprise (and apparently annoy) people. But this is to be expected because the probabilities build up in a non-linear way.

Concerning pedigree collapse it is very difficult to see how it can have a big enough effect to change the basic logic. It happens increasingly of course as the saturation increases. Pedigree collapse increase is thus an effect of increased common ancestral lines, not something working against them. It might help to think in terms of the increasing % of people sharing a line rather than imaginary numbers which are in any case always easily going to get quickly bigger than the total population.

---

I know I probably shouldn't be going off-topic, but in response to Mark above, Harry may have married a commoner, but so too did William, a future King. Indeed so, technically, did Charles, twice, since neither Diana or Camilla held a royal or peerage title in their own right prior to marriage, both only acquired courtesy titles dervied from their marriage to Charles. Likewise Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was also technically a commoner when she married the future George VI, and dervied her titles from being married to him. You have to go back to Queen Mary, wife of George V, who was born HSH Princess May von Teck (from a cadet branch of the royal family of Wurttemberg), before you find a monarch, or future monarch, marrying someone who was not a commoner.

As for it being a guarantee that Harry will never be King, how do you work that out? He is still 6th in line to the throne, behind his father, brother, and niblings, and the third person of full age in that line. One day our current Queen and Prince of Wales will have both passed, and conceivably Wiliam could happen to unexpectedly predecease one or both of those (or renounce, or become Catholic etc). If William's kids are still minors at that point then Harry would be the Regent. If they are adults then they may chose to marry without the permission of the monarch, or choose to become Catholic, and may have all become debarred from succession, or else they may simply choose to give up their succession rights, for themselves and their descendants, any of such scenarios would then lead to Harry, or his children and future heirs, being on the throne. Second sons, and their lines, have reached the throne on plenty of occassions in the past, George V was a second son (his older brother had died in his thirties from pneumonia, having only been engaged at the time, not married), as was George VI (thanks to his older brother abdicating to marry a twice divorced American woman).

---

"Even given pedigree collapse, the number of ancestors is going to be huge. And don't forget that the country's population shrinks in exactly the same way as you go back, hence the overlaps."

I won't argue that the article is wrong, just that it is bad science.  It isn't going in to the argument with an open judgement and using the evidence to make the case - the author has an agenda and is cherry picking science to fit his/her narrative.

---

Dan Webb, I don't think Charlie is Harry's father, thats what I am saying.

---

Yes, I understood that you were questioning his parentage. But his marrying a commoner is not, as you theorise, an effect of this elleged MPE, since his brother, father and grandfather also married commoners, and as far as I'm aware noone has quesioned their parentage. Also he is very much in line to the succession (unless proof of an MPE is found and made available, publically, or to parliament, to rule him out), so as it stands he would still be able to become King in the unlikely, but possible, circumstance I outlined above.

---

Mark the guy looks like a clone of his father and grandfather. I am surely not the only person who is sick of conspiracy theories at the moment. Please go post them somewhere else.

---

Dan, when you bracket Lady Diana and Harry's American bride as both commoners that is hardly true. Lady Diana may not be a royal, but she is very typical of princely brides over the years.

Her father was an Earl ? And no doubt royal heritage/ancestory, where as Harry's misses is as common as my girlfriend, and probably no UK heritage and not even from the gentry so speak, correct me if I'm wrong, but with Harry's questionable parentage and his marriage choice, he and his offsprings would be ineligible for the crown, and I reckon the royals know that, but as long as the succession of the crown doesn't get near him then there's no problems.

---

Andrew, I don't think Harry looks at all like Charles. He has red hair and looks a lot more like Diana's supposed lover, but I will conceed that all this is very speculative, but a simple DNA test would clear the smoke in order to make sure there is no fire.

---

Yes he has a reddish beard very much like his grandfather's once was, as has been shown by the media many times. I see no evidence of anything surprising, and indeed children do not always look so similar to family members and this does not necessarily mean anything.

Mark there are conspiracy stories being promoted to the weak-minded about everything right now, and while it causes problems in many aspects of life, genealogy is a field that is particularly exposed to problems when it comes to keeping fiction apart from facts.

When you feel yourself going this direction, please remind yourself that the love of such tall stories is an aspect of human nature which often sends us in completely wrong directions.

In any case, it is hard enough to keep fiction out of this genealogical community already.

---

Mark, I'll concede it is unusual for a royal Prince to have married an American woman, but their future descendants will be just as validly in line to the throne as William's are (unless of course Harry's alleged illegitimacy is ever proved in some way). Since the marriage had the Queen's formal permission (as the first six in line must have in order to get married) then it is a valid marriage, and the descendants are valid for the line of succession.

A commoner is anyone who is subject to Common Law, which is everyone who doesn't have a peerage title or royal title in their own right. Daughters of Peers, as Diana was, are still technically commoners. Even if Diana, as an example, was a bit of an unbalanced comparison to Meghan, then Kate is much the same as Meghan, as she too has only a very small amount of royal ancestry deep in her genealogy. Even Meghan is a descendant of Edward III, via one of his descendants, a Revd Skipper, who moved from England to New England in 1639.

---

Andrew, I am not a conspiracyst, I don't believe in Roswell, I believe Harvey Lee Oswald acted alone, I believe we walked on moon etc etc, I'm a mathematics and science guy. I believe one should also keep an open mind, but not so open that one's brains fall out, so no problems there. However I do believe there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant further investigation into Harry's parentage, that's all I am saying. Also, on a site like wikitree I think it totally appropriate.

If Harry was in my family tree I don't think I could put Charles in as father is confident. I think a public DNA test would the only way to resolve the issue. He gets a lot of benefits with his position and he should be legitimate in order to receive it, just my opinion.

Firstly, it is well documented that both Charles and Diana had a lover at the same time, and during this time their marriage was on the rocks.

Secondly, Harry was conceived during this time and happens to look more like Diana's lover than Charles, I don't think you need to be conspiracyst to have reasonable doubt about his father.

Thirdly, in Harry's defence you said he looks like the Spencer's, well done, so he should, their his family and he looks like a combination of Diana's lover and the Spencer's, but he doesn't look a lot like William or Charles. William doesn't look like the Spencer's. Enough circumstantial evidence for me in order for further investigation, that's all I am saying.

Lastly, your loose use of adjectives implied I might be feeble minded, although you didn't outrightly say it. I could just as easily suggest that you have a romantic notion of the happily married Royal couple sailing off into the sunset with the two boy princes, and as such, Harry's legitimacy is in line with your preconceived prejudices. So to be civil, we will have to agree to disagree.

---

Dan, I agree with what you are saying. But for me, and it's just my opinion, the Queen may not have granted permission if Harry was a definite son of Charles. If I was to be speculative, I'd say a pragmatic approach has been taken by all parties involved in regards to Harry's legitimacy.

The lover now has a dna stake in the royal family. It serves him well to remain silent for his sons best outcome, even if he wasn't sure either way, this is still his best outcome.

Charles and the Queen are best served by legitimacy, any scandal like this is bad for business and undermines their bloodlines, and once again, even with uncertainty, this is their best outcome.

Harry and William are best served by legitimacy, for obvious reasons such as their mothers reputation, and once again, either way this is their best outcome.

And lastly, because Harry is no realistic chance of being King, then this pragmatic approach to the question of Harry's legitimacy doesn't affect the status quo of the royals what so ever, either way, this is the best outcome.

It's a nice ending for a bad day out.

These are not my reasons for doubting Harry's legitimacy, I've outlined those above. So at the risk of being accused of being a conspiracyst, I am simply providing a speculative summary of the suspected individual positions on it all.

---

Mark it is not a part of the definition of a conspiracy theory that you need to believe in all conspiracy theories. If you make up scenarios which can not be proven true or false, because within the story there is an assertion of cover-ups, then you are making up a conspiracy story.

This habit of mind is an addiction which can spread and confuse and eventually break down trust in the ability of people to know anything (which is why corrupt politicians, biblical literalists, lobbyists, etc, encourage them when they want a smoke screen). They are one of the greatest problems facing western civilization right now, and they were important causes of wars and carnage in the past.

Please accept that decent communities which have an interest in truth can and should be very opposed to this type of thing.

---

Conversations about living persons are explicitly forbidden on Wikitree and this one seems particularly egregious. At best, it's speculation and at worst, malicious gossip. And there are a number of people who could be hurt by it. This thread should be deleted.

---

Well Monica I suppose it makes a difference that it is a notable person.

My concern is more about the attitude people should have on this wiki towards carefully but really building up an understanding of the truth. Like I said, there are mental habits that can develop and then spread. I feel that the current "alternative facts" culture coming out of America's amazing internal problems is effecting many international fields of discourse. The idea that everything is just a story so you might as well make more and believe which ever ones your "guts" like was one Putin was using before he won the American election. 

It is a virus. Reality does exist. Absolute certainty never did.

In any case, whatever the bigger issues, this is a genealogy research community and as anyone who follows me here knows I strongly believe in a systematically skeptical approach, similar to what the people we trust most have to use: doctors, people who design airplanes, and the very best genealogists! :)

And on a genealogical note I descend from several close relatives of Francis Bacon, who of course had no children himself. I have not looked into David Hume's family.

---

I agree about living persons, but unfortunately all of this is already very much in the public arena, they are public property and as such different rules apply to them. It comes with the territory. But if I have to, then I have to .. sorry for talking about the living, but I will add that the Windsors can sue me or a lot of people anytime they want to for liable but proving loss of income here in Australia might be a little to disclosing for their comfort levels, a court is also a good level playing field where DNA testing awaits them .. I think I am safe. Ok I'm done .

---

Mark as mentioned I agree with you at least that this is not a privacy issue. Much bigger than that. :) As a good Aussie, I am not particularly anti or pro royal, but very much anti B.S. You can prove your intelligence by showing how you handle real evidence, not by whining about the evidence you don't have. Good luck, and let me know if I can help.