Can anyone trace a male only line of descent back to a king. Or female only to a queen.

+3 votes
Someone made the mistake earlier of asking if anyone had yDNA back to William the Conquer. It was a mistake, because he isn't known to have had male heirs. But, this got me thinking how rare this must be. And yet a couple of months ago, I discovered that I possibly am a male only descendant of a King. So can anyone else demonstrate a male only line? Or, not to leave the ladies out, a female only line?
in The Tree House by Ben Molesworth G2G6 Mach 4 (43.5k points)
edited by Ben Molesworth

laugh Um, curiosity compels me to point out not going to get any descendants without both genders involved so by "male only" ...  and curiosity compels me to seek clarification on "male only" 

did you mean to say you are the only MALE descendant known and there might be some females? 

or the Y-DNA tracked all the way back and it's solid no uncertainties along the way? 

and BTW it's a good thing someone asked about William the C.'s descendants Y-DNA and now we all know or can know he had no male desc. to carry the Y-DNA.  I certainly will cherish this nugget of information. 

Although I have to wonder how do "THEY" KNOW he had no male descendants?  --- best that can be said is that "as yet" William the C. has not been discovered to have any Y-DNA descendants -- not every single male in this world has had their DNA tested 

I haven't checked but I think there are no male descendants of William the Conqueror that are known via the paper trail, that is perhaps what Benjamin was referring to?
Perhaps getting home from work at 3am isn't so great pn the old grey matter, or the time to pose questions. Great time for philosophy though. Let me rephrase with male only line of descent, or female only, not to say that they didn't have two parents. I think you are both correct about no male descendant of William the Conquer, I probably should have double checked.

However, to the original point, I think it must be somewhat rare to be able to trace yourself directly to a king through the male line of descent, and yet be no where near royality. What I discovered in our tree, is a king of some obscure provence, about 1300 years ago (who was overthrown). So my thought is, how many others have found a direct male line, or direct female line.
Thinking back to the search for matches to the dna of Richard III, they did manage to find two people alive today whose mtdna did match Richard III, so via the female line (although not to a Queen).  However I think they have failed to find a match for his ydna, even though they tested a number of men who on paper should have matched.

Perhaps theoretically it is going to be more likely to find a direct female line, given that a false maternal event is I would think pretty rare.

laughAh, well, related to or desc of royalty, nobility, etc, ... seems to be "a lot of that going around" ... LOL 

I have to admit 1,300 yrs of unbroken Y-DNA is very very impressive. In the era 650 AD to 700 AD is your own originating MALE ancestor who "laid the keel of this ship of fate" which NOW finds YOU getting home (sailing into port) at 3 am (awful hour) ... 

That is impressive, yes. 1,300 years isn't something to disdain.  I mean I KNOW I had ancestors that far back because here I am.  That's irrefutable. 

DO you happen to know the names and other vitals of those 1,300 years of ancestry? 

Last King of Fresia. Friesland-40. Of course it would be extremely difficult to prove, and some parts of the line would be currently under debate. The Molesworth line claims descent from the Lindsay line, and some of the Lindsay line won't agree to it, and others do.

Oh, Ben, these family quarrels !! Or quibbles. So we're not talking about a proven step by step Y-DNA, merely the tantalizing dream of having one ... 

Take comfort in the fact you DID have ancestors, because there you stand, well, sit probably, and that is irrefutable. You exist. Lunging out to grab a shiny star from the vastness might be the way to discover how far "down" goes ... [read that or something similar years ago and it impressed me, because how far "down" IS "down"? When do you quit measuring it? When does it stop being "down"? ]

John, I understood mtDNA to be only trackable through the females, and unless we've been seriously misled, Richard III was gender bio male ? 

Would have to be his mama, from those two modern females to Richard III's mother ... ah, Cecily Neville (1415-1495) 

Have to take it on faith that Richard is the proven (DNA) fruit of the union of Cecily and whomever .... NOT a student of English British etc history ... 

Paper trails are so satisfying, you know, you track it down, lay it out, type it up, get a printout and voila everyone related knew where they fit into the picture. 

And then along came DNA ... and skeletons, SECRETS,  started falling out of closets, the rafters, or being dug up in basements, hauled out of the sheds long abandoned, or sent anonymously in plain brown wrappers to those who least expected such a thing ... and now you don't dare say you are descended from ... anyone ... unless you have that DNA proof. Best you can say anymore without that DNA is "So far as is known ..." 

I tell you what though Susan. Thank you for a good laugh today!

Forced by your words, John, to delve into Y-DNA, Richard III, and "false maternal event" (THAT was a puzzler for me) ... but  decided in view of the materials online 2014/15 and etc ... "de Warren's Y chromosome doesn't match Richard III or Henry Somerset, so somewhere along the line there's been another false paternity ..." de Warren said to have the TRUE Y-DNA etc and so forth 

Finally concluded that a false maternal or paternal event in this context would be a broken link in the chain of Y-DNA or mtDNA from one generation to the next ... that the reported parent was not the source of the parental chromosome -- although without names at least attached to each person in the chain being tracked, you'd not know who was reported and thus who was challenged by the test ... 

But no doubt all that was carefully taken care of so the study itself could not be challenged ... 

Actually I got the term wrong - it should be an NPE non paternity event  or presumably a non-maternity event.

The only non-maternity event (and paternity event) I am aware of relates to the 1st Baron Douglas of Douglas, where his parents bought or adopted a child and presented it as their own.

Of course James Stuart, 'the Old Pretender' is supposed to have been smuggled into the bed of his mother in a warming pan but that was more than likely political gossip.

Do FTDNA know about this?  I've heard they're telling quite a few of their clients that they have the yDNA of Niall of the Nine Hostages.
OKAY RJ -- Who is (what is) FTDNA and WHO // WHAT is "Niall of the Nine Hostages"? and is this going to be something I'm told  that I'm going to sorry I asked about? because that's all too often the case ...

Oh, dear, Niall is characterized online as "incredibly fertile" and Niall's dynasty was 6th to 10th Century  -- what HIS Ireland looked like on maps I dunno, it probably isn't the one of the 21st Century

And ARE you talking those 3, 000,000 PLUS PLUS descendants? Huh. I've seen tom cats around here, you have to wonder how they can still walk ...

1 Answer

+1 vote
William Peverel may have been his son.
by Stevenson Browne G2G3 (3.6k points)

Related questions

+11 votes
1 answer
336 views asked Jul 4, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Jack Day G2G6 Pilot (349k points)
+26 votes
16 answers
+28 votes
4 answers
+3 votes
0 answers
+7 votes
2 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
2 answers
590 views asked Feb 26, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Derek Blackman G2G6 Mach 1 (19.2k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright