Are we all descendants of Kings and Royalty?
Is it rare to have Royalty in the family tree? Already established: 1. Royals were more likely to have documentation and legends. 2. Royals were more likely to have survived the plague.
One person said "All of the people that could trace family to the first years in America, could then trace further back to find Royalty." Is it more common to get dead ends than Royalty?
|
Re: Are we all descendants of Kings and Royalty?
The population of Britain in 1600 was just under 5 million. The Royal family at that time had about 50 or 60 people in it, if you include cousins. The arithmetic therefore suggests that the vast majority of the population were not related to them.
I would say that the chances of being related to Royalty generally are very slim. Also most of the royal family’s family tree has been extremely well documented for obvious inheritance reasons, including many born on the wrong side of the blanket. Consequently if there is a relationship, it should be fairly straightforward to establish.
|
Re: Are we all descendants of Kings and Royalty?
Also don't forget that the royal family of the UK itself has been replaced at various times via force or lack of heirs.
Don't mistake the early privileges of being descended from a British noble family with the education and alliances needed to get a land grant for oneself, children or other members of those families with being royalty oneself.
In fact but that time nobility was granted more often due to financial success than due to degree of relatedness to the ruling royal family.
Anyone that's studied history knows that royal families are not too particular with granting titles of nobility. It you had financial clot, if you had weaponry, and if you had political clout they'd grant title because you had what they want always wanting more of. It's very much how most of our elected politician behave today with the way they treat those that run big businesses compared to the average voter when creating a budget.
|