Genealogical studies [WAS: Genetic studies]

Amy:
I just had to respond to this!
Two things:
First: "pedigree collapse" means absolutely nothing to my brain
connections but has definitely caught my interest and I'd like to know
more. I have a very simple family tree from present dating back to the
1590's in Scotland (I'm in the USA - KY) and was able to go in 1999 and
visit the family farm that was only sold 57 years ago.
But I don't know what collapse and widest extent mean. I guess it means
the intermingling of families and looking at more than one family tree
at a time. That would be a pedigree, as opposed to just one parent line?

Ann:
Not exactly. In this context, "pedigree" refers to one's
ancestry, laid out as a pedigree chart -- sounds just like a snooty
Kentucky thoroughbred's equine ancestry!

The chart starts with You, and the number of ancestors doubles
with every generation. One Self, then two Parents, four Grandparents,
eight Great-Grandparents, sixteen Great-Great-Grandparents, and so on
and on. If every individual in your pedigree occupies one slot only,
the number of ancestors redoubles over and over.

However, in real life, the number of ancestors doesn't do that.
At some point, two people marry who have ancestors in common -- they are
cousins. They may be so distantly related that they are completely
unaware of any connection, or maybe they do know that there is a distant
one. Even if we don't know where in any individual pedigree this
happened, we know it had to, because if those numbers continue to
redouble every generation, they will reach a number that is greater
than the number of people alive at the time. And we certainly know that
a relatively small (smaller) number of people living in, say, Colonial
times, were the ancestors of a larger number of people living today.

The "widest" point in an individual's pedigree is where s/he has
the most Unique ancestors. The next generation before, there are
duplications of the parents of cousins who have married, and the next
earlier generation of Their parents. The number of unique ancestors is
smaller than the number of possible slots for them. Collapse, you see.

L.P.H.,

Ann
axsc@...
http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm

Things I've learned from British folk ballads:
If you run into any knights of ghosts and shadows, invest in frequent
flier miles.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An article on genetics that I read about a year ago pits the mean point
of convergence at ten generations. The study referred to societies in
which marriages were 'random'.

Sharp, Ann (GT&D) wrote:
>
> Amy:
> I just had to respond to this!
> Two things:
> First: "pedigree collapse" means absolutely nothing to my brain
> connections but has definitely caught my interest and I'd like to know
> more. I have a very simple family tree from present dating back to the
> 1590's in Scotland (I'm in the USA - KY) and was able to go in 1999 and
> visit the family farm that was only sold 57 years ago.
> But I don't know what collapse and widest extent mean. I guess it means
> the intermingling of families and looking at more than one family tree
> at a time. That would be a pedigree, as opposed to just one parent line?
>
> Ann:
> Not exactly. In this context, "pedigree" refers to one's
> ancestry, laid out as a pedigree chart -- sounds just like a snooty
> Kentucky thoroughbred's equine ancestry!
>
> The chart starts with You, and the number of ancestors doubles
> with every generation. One Self, then two Parents, four Grandparents,
> eight Great-Grandparents, sixteen Great-Great-Grandparents, and so on
> and on. If every individual in your pedigree occupies one slot only,
> the number of ancestors redoubles over and over.
>
> However, in real life, the number of ancestors doesn't do that.
> At some point, two people marry who have ancestors in common -- they are
> cousins. They may be so distantly related that they are completely
> unaware of any connection, or maybe they do know that there is a distant
> one. Even if we don't know where in any individual pedigree this
> happened, we know it had to, because if those numbers continue to
> redouble every generation, they will reach a number that is greater
> than the number of people alive at the time. And we certainly know that
> a relatively small (smaller) number of people living in, say, Colonial
> times, were the ancestors of a larger number of people living today.
>
> The "widest" point in an individual's pedigree is where s/he has
> the most Unique ancestors. The next generation before, there are
> duplications of the parents of cousins who have married, and the next
> earlier generation of Their parents. The number of unique ancestors is
> smaller than the number of possible slots for them. Collapse, you see.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
> axsc@... <mailto:axsc%40pge.com>
> http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm
> <http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm>
>
> Things I've learned from British folk ballads:
> If you run into any knights of ghosts and shadows, invest in frequent
> flier miles.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>

--- In , Bill Barber
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> An article on genetics that I read about a year ago pits the mean
point
> of convergence at ten generations. The study referred to societies
in
> which marriages were 'random'.
>
> Sharp, Ann (GT&D) wrote:
> >
> > Amy:
> > I just had to respond to this!
> > Two things:
> > First: "pedigree collapse" means absolutely nothing to my brain
> > connections but has definitely caught my interest and I'd like to
know
> > more. I have a very simple family tree from present dating back
to the
> > 1590's in Scotland (I'm in the USA - KY) and was able to go in
1999 and
> > visit the family farm that was only sold 57 years ago.
> > But I don't know what collapse and widest extent mean. I guess it
means
> > the intermingling of families and looking at more than one family
tree
> > at a time. That would be a pedigree, as opposed to just one
parent line?
> >
> > Ann:
> > Not exactly. In this context, "pedigree" refers to one's
> > ancestry, laid out as a pedigree chart -- sounds just like a
snooty
> > Kentucky thoroughbred's equine ancestry!
> >
> > The chart starts with You, and the number of ancestors doubles
> > with every generation. One Self, then two Parents, four
Grandparents,
> > eight Great-Grandparents, sixteen Great-Great-Grandparents, and
so on
> > and on. If every individual in your pedigree occupies one slot
only,
> > the number of ancestors redoubles over and over.
> >
> > However, in real life, the number of ancestors doesn't do that.
> > At some point, two people marry who have ancestors in common --
they are
> > cousins. They may be so distantly related that they are completely
> > unaware of any connection, or maybe they do know that there is a
distant
> > one. Even if we don't know where in any individual pedigree this
> > happened, we know it had to, because if those numbers continue to
> > redouble every generation, they will reach a number that is
greater
> > than the number of people alive at the time. And we certainly
know that
> > a relatively small (smaller) number of people living in, say,
Colonial
> > times, were the ancestors of a larger number of people living
today.
> >
> > The "widest" point in an individual's pedigree is where s/he has
> > the most Unique ancestors. The next generation before, there are
> > duplications of the parents of cousins who have married, and the
next
> > earlier generation of Their parents. The number of unique
ancestors is
> > smaller than the number of possible slots for them. Collapse, you
see.
> >
> > L.P.H.,
> >
> > Ann
> > axsc@... <mailto:axsc%40pge.com>
> > http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm
> > <http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm>
> >
> > Things I've learned from British folk ballads:
> > If you run into any knights of ghosts and shadows, invest in
frequent
> > flier miles.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
That's exactly the point, Bill (et al):
If someone produces a celebrity proven to be descended from Edward
III, it is not possible to say "Yes but who isn't?" because people
tend to marry semi-distant cousins; even more so in a colonial
scenario. You cannot reliably estimate the total number of
descendants beyond a few generations, unless you include a factor for
this.
Catholic families have other factors: whilst they may have
(stereotypically) more children, some "spares" would go into holy
orders and die without issue - Reginald Pole, two of Lincoln's
brothers, one sister and Edmund de la Pole's daughter. Consequently,
if the first (male or general) line dies out, the third or fourth
brother is sometimes required.

Ann

Thanks for your detailed and succinct explanation of pedigree collapse. Of course, if people stay in a particular locality over several generations and tend to marry people from the same locality, then before long the chances are high that those they marry will be related to them. The same is likely to happen among the aristocracy, since they tend to marry those they consider their equals, in other words other aristocrats. I forget who makes this point, but it is reckoned that the English peerage in the 15th century comprised only about 60 families, who were all related to one another to some degree. There were only 20 or so families of dukes and earls, and they married almost exclusively among themselves or among royalty (the dukes were all 3-4 generations at most removed from the immediate royal family anyway).

As a matter of interest, we have some pedigree collapse in my absolutely ordinary family. My maternal grandparents were first cousins (their mothers were sisters), so I only have 14 great-great-grandparents instead of the expected 16. Not only that, my paternal grandfather was first cousin to his wife's mother (not sure whether that makes these grandpaents second cousins or cousins once removed). That means that one set of great-great-grandparents were also great-great-great-grandparents!

Ann

My mother was a cross-cousin. Her father and his sister (Watsons)
married a brother and sister (MacDonalds). Each couple had two children.
I refer to them as the 'kidney donors'.

Yeah, I know. Organ donorship is more complex than that.

A LYON wrote:
>
> Ann
>
> Thanks for your detailed and succinct explanation of pedigree
> collapse. Of course, if people stay in a particular locality over
> several generations and tend to marry people from the same locality,
> then before long the chances are high that those they marry will be
> related to them. The same is likely to happen among the aristocracy,
> since they tend to marry those they consider their equals, in other
> words other aristocrats. I forget who makes this point, but it is
> reckoned that the English peerage in the 15th century comprised only
> about 60 families, who were all related to one another to some degree.
> There were only 20 or so families of dukes and earls, and they married
> almost exclusively among themselves or among royalty (the dukes were
> all 3-4 generations at most removed from the immediate royal family
> anyway).
>
> As a matter of interest, we have some pedigree collapse in my
> absolutely ordinary family. My maternal grandparents were first
> cousins (their mothers were sisters), so I only have 14
> great-great-grandparents instead of the expected 16. Not only that, my
> paternal grandfather was first cousin to his wife's mother (not sure
> whether that makes these grandpaents second cousins or cousins once
> removed). That means that one set of great-great-grandparents were
> also great-great-great-grandparents!
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>

I like it all the same.

My mother died a little under three years ago from multiple myeloma, a cancer of the bone marrow which causes kidney failure. Had it been diagnosed earlier, a bone marrow transplant could have been among the treatment possibilities. It would have been interesting to see whether my brother and myself and my mother's two nephews would have been suitable donors.

Ann

Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
My mother was a cross-cousin. Her father and his sister (Watsons)
married a brother and sister (MacDonalds). Each couple had two children.
I refer to them as the 'kidney donors'.

Yeah, I know. Organ donorship is more complex than that.

A LYON wrote:
>
> Ann
>
> Thanks for your detailed and succinct explanation of pedigree
> collapse. Of course, if people stay in a particular locality over
> several generations and tend to marry people from the same locality,
> then before long the chances are high that those they marry will be
> related to them. The same is likely to happen among the aristocracy,
> since they tend to marry those they consider their equals, in other
> words other aristocrats. I forget who makes this point, but it is
> reckoned that the English peerage in the 15th century comprised only
> about 60 families, who were all related to one another to some degree.
> There were only 20 or so families of dukes and earls, and they married
> almost exclusively among themselves or among royalty (the dukes were
> all 3-4 generations at most removed from the immediate royal family
> anyway).
>
> As a matter of interest, we have some pedigree collapse in my
> absolutely ordinary family. My maternal grandparents were first
> cousins (their mothers were sisters), so I only have 14
> great-great-grandparents instead of the expected 16. Not only that, my
> paternal grandfather was first cousin to his wife's mother (not sure
> whether that makes these grandpaents second cousins or cousins once
> removed). That means that one set of great-great-grandparents were
> also great-great-great-grandparents!
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>

Thank you for this e-mail. I had been "bounced" for some reason and didn't get the pedigree collapse information. I get confused sometime about who wrote what (sometimes it looks like Ann wrote and then responded to herself) but I THINK Ann wrote the information and Bill responded...but thank you both! Now I understand.
I hope I am not too pesty asking questions but unless I hear you all mention something, I don't even know what questions to seek answers to.
Thank you, Paul, for the information about Buckingham. Even in the Tudor non-fiction I read, and I've been at that for decades, I get confused about some of the Dukes. I never, ever liked Henry VII which is why I was so open to the possibility of Richard being innocent. And Bill, thank you for the information about Hastings.

I'm reading Richard III by Kendall and am so glad that I visited Warwick Castle in 1997 and 1999 so that I knew that bit of history about the Kingmaker and can put it all in context. I am enjoying reading the historical setting during Richard's childhood. I knew nothing about their father, only about Edward, George, and Richard. When I heard the adventures back then I didn't even connect them with Richard's family.
I feel so stupid sometimes.
I had to laugh when I was in the British Library my last full day in England in '99. I had gotten a temporary reading card and ordered a book on Charles I.
I am ashamed to admit this but...before the trip I had decided to research somebody other than Tudors, and people who have been executed always interest me. So I had read some and admired his sincerity (the book was highly prejudicial). I thought it was neat that he, even though I am not into written prayers, had compiled a prayer book so that everybody could be thinking the same things during worship.
At the same time I was studying my Scottish Ancestors and admired their spirit - the first thing we did in Scotland was go to the cemetary in Ayreshire where many of the Covenanters were buried.
I went to St. Giles where they protested having a religion pushed down their throats. And I admired them for fighting for their rights.

Back in England I went and did "the walk" as Charles I was taken to his execution.
Then I am in the library and the realization dawned on me...it was Charles I that forced his way of religion on the Covenenters. It was one of those moments where you have a "god's eye view" and realize that everybody was doing exactly what they thought was the right thing and nobody was really evil. Although I'll never feel warm toward Oliver Cromwell :-)
Sorry I ran on... but I love to see other sides of things, not just the popular view.
That's why I'm on this group!
Amy Barkman

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Barber
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Genealogical studies [WAS: Genetic studies]


My mother was a cross-cousin. Her father and his sister (Watsons)
married a brother and sister (MacDonalds). Each couple had two children.
I refer to them as the 'kidney donors'.

Yeah, I know. Organ donorship is more complex than that.

A LYON wrote:
>
> Ann
>
> Thanks for your detailed and succinct explanation of pedigree
> collapse. Of course, if people stay in a particular locality over
> several generations and tend to marry people from the same locality,
> then before long the chances are high that those they marry will be
> related to them. The same is likely to happen among the aristocracy,
> since they tend to marry those they consider their equals, in other
> words other aristocrats. I forget who makes this point, but it is
> reckoned that the English peerage in the 15th century comprised only
> about 60 families, who were all related to one another to some degree.
> There were only 20 or so families of dukes and earls, and they married
> almost exclusively among themselves or among royalty (the dukes were
> all 3-4 generations at most removed from the immediate royal family
> anyway).
>
> As a matter of interest, we have some pedigree collapse in my
> absolutely ordinary family. My maternal grandparents were first
> cousins (their mothers were sisters), so I only have 14
> great-great-grandparents instead of the expected 16. Not only that, my
> paternal grandfather was first cousin to his wife's mother (not sure
> whether that makes these grandpaents second cousins or cousins once
> removed). That means that one set of great-great-grandparents were
> also great-great-great-grandparents!
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>