Relation to famous people

intresting!!

Boudicca, Celtic Warrior Queen is my 38th great grandmother. :)

Queen Elizabeth II is my13th cousin once removed, and Prince Charles is my 14th direct cousin (no removals)

Ok. how can that be, Cynthia? Charles is the Son of Elizabeth. So they both have to be direct. Unless it's thru Dad. Then Elizabeth would be an in law cousin.

Queen Elizabeth II is your 13th cousin once removed.
You
→ Herman Marvin Gussa
your father → Emily Ruth Young
his mother → Annabelle White
her mother → James Caldwell WHITE
her father → Amanda H. MUNDAY
his mother → Nancy Broaddus
her mother → Mary "Nancy" Bowles (Shipp)
her mother → Thomas Shipp, II
her father → Thomas Shipp, I
his father → Elizabeth Shipp (Brooks)
his mother → Susannah Wyatt
her mother → George Wyatt
her father → Reverend Haute Wyatt
his father → Lady Jane Finch
his mother → Sir Thomas Finch of Eastwell
her brother → Moyle Finch, 1st Baronet
his son → Heneage Finch, Speaker of the House of Commons
his son → Sir Heneage Finch, 1st Earl of Nottingham
his son → Sir Daniel Finch, 7th Earl Winchilsea and 2nd Earl Nottingham
his son → Mary Kerr (Finch)
his daughter → Dorothy Boyle (Savile), Countess of Cork
her daughter → Charlotte Elizabeth Cavendish (Boyle), 6th Baronness Clifford
her daughter → Dorothy Cavenish-Bentinck, Duchess of Portland
her daughter → Lt.-Col. Lord William Charles Augustus Cavendish-Bentinck
her son → Reverend Charles William Frederick Cavendish-Bentinck
his son → Cecilia Nina Bowes-Lyon (Cavendish-Bentinck), Countess of Strathmore and Kinghorne
his daughter → Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother
her daughter → Queen Elizabeth II
her daughter

Thats a master profile

Thats a master profile

This is the Master Profile for Charles, Prince of Wales.
Charles, Prince of Wales is your 14th cousin.
You
→ Herman Marvin Gussa
your father → Emily Ruth Young
his mother → Annabelle White
her mother → James Caldwell WHITE
her father → Amanda H. MUNDAY
his mother → Nancy Broaddus
her mother → Mary "Nancy" Bowles (Shipp)
her mother → Thomas Shipp, II
her father → Thomas Shipp, I
his father → Elizabeth Shipp (Brooks)
his mother → Susannah Wyatt
her mother → George Wyatt
her father → Reverend Haute Wyatt
his father → Lady Jane Finch
his mother → Sir Thomas Finch of Eastwell
her brother → Moyle Finch, 1st Baronet
his son → Heneage Finch, Speaker of the House of Commons
his son → Sir Heneage Finch, 1st Earl of Nottingham
his son → Sir Daniel Finch, 7th Earl Winchilsea and 2nd Earl Nottingham
his son → Mary Kerr (Finch)
his daughter → Dorothy Boyle (Savile), Countess of Cork
her daughter → Charlotte Elizabeth Cavendish (Boyle), 6th Baronness Clifford
her daughter → Dorothy Cavenish-Bentinck, Duchess of Portland
her daughter → Lt.-Col. Lord William Charles Augustus Cavendish-Bentinck
her son → Reverend Charles William Frederick Cavendish-Bentinck
his son → Cecilia Nina Bowes-Lyon (Cavendish-Bentinck), Countess of Strathmore and Kinghorne
his daughter → Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother
her daughter → Queen Elizabeth II
her daughter → Charles, Prince of Wales
her son

Ok but Charles if I am reading yhis correctly is not her daughter.I think ou meant son. It's still direct in both cases.And there is another one in that line that I think should read her son Lt Col Lord William Charles ete ete. Not typing it all out.Unless I am supose to read this bottom to top instead of top to bottom.

I did not type it out I copy and pasted it from the page, its a problem with Geni, but the line is correct.

Judy, its right and "direct" to have Charles as a 14th cousin and his mum QEII as a 13th cousin once removed. That doesn't mean it isn't direct, just that Cynthia and Charles are of the same generation (or to put it another way, the same number of ancestors back until they have a common one, which in her case is Lady Jane and her brother Sir Thomas Finch's parents). Cynthias Dad and QEII are 13th cousins. In Cynthias report, all the "his mother" "her son" etc. lines are one line too low which makes it a bit hard to read. PS I'm a 14th cousin with Wills and Harry, 13th cous once removed to Charles, and 12th cous twice removed to QEII etc. The common ancestor for me and the royals is Sir Andrew Noel 1512-1563 after following the same Cavendish line up as far as Dorothy Cavendish-Bentick. Mine then follows her husband back through a line of Noels who were Earls and Viscounts. Still haven't been invited around for high tea yet.

I thought for a minute my dysletic brain was reading something incorrectly.

I am sooooo connected to the Royals but further back because 99 percent of ma family was either already in America or on there way the end of the sixteen hundreds. A few arr. later.So of course I am not directly connected to the sitting Royals. So I always say I am so connected . That and a dollar plus will buy me a cuo of coffee. No invites to the place as yet!!!!!!

PS I just said this on the other venue but I want to thank whoever allowed we non pros to post our info onto our tree this weekend. I know I could have had others do it for me, and on occassion I have, but I wanted to do it myself. I have spent a lot time searching this info out and some I had was personel family info , that only we had. Others thankfully someone kindly help me manurever the Canadian records. Otherwise I might not have known I really had the correct info all the time. So I have been very happerly ,busy entering it. After I get all the names in, I think I have, I will go back and double check to make sure all people are in and then will start entering what info I have.As long as I am manager and can still get into them I am soooooo happy! See I can be up on occassion!

PS , I know this is not the subject on hand but didn't know where else to post it.

I guess the question I would like to know the answer to is who is connected to the world tree and is not connected to royalty? It would seem that if you can connect to the big tree you will see many royal connections. I could be wrong. It took me a year of so to figure it out and look up the ancestors back far enough to connect to the big tree, but I did and there it is.

Vicki you've asked a very interesting question. The truth probably is we have far more non royal ancestry than royal:). But because the royal families are well documented, if a valid connection can be made to one, then the whole structure comes in.

That to me is part of the point of Geni. We have that backbone in place (more or less), and now as researchers we can concentrate our efforts on teasing out the data - and documenting it - for our more obscure but equally "notable" family.

Judi your story about your successful collaboration made my day, and mazel tov for jumping a "brick wall."

Vicki, a shorter answer to your question than Erica's:-
"No one."
Anyone who is connected to the Tree is connected to the royals, any two people who are part of the Tree by definition must be connected to each other in some way.
In my case Geni is not able to find a relationship path so it must be a very convoluted connection indeed.

Well, acturally I go directly to King Henry 2 of England, King Henry the 1st of England, William, the conq. , Chalemaigne . and Robert The Bruce just to name a few After Also John Lackland the legetiment route and WIlliam Longspree the not so legitiment route I hsve several knights , barons, Earls ete before we get to just regular people. So some of us are really connected to Royality. Also had a Great grandfather on my father's side who tho not royal was in the King of Belgium's guards. Like I said before this won't get invite to a places . Just with cost of a cut of coffee get me just that a cup of coffee. Judy
.

I do not really "count" such relationships as "first cousin five times removed's wife's first cousin four times removed's husband's sister's husband's 15th cousin twice removed". Its mildly interesting to me mostly just showing the power of Geni's software. Its a "connection" not a relation. That someone is a distant cousin is also mildly interesting. For example, I note that Princess Diana is my 12th cousin twice removed. Similarly I am connected in the same way to many Presidents. What I do count as more noteworthy is a direct ascendancy line such as great grandparents. That to me is a much more important direct connection to somebody than these other relationships. Again, all interesting. But sometimes frightening. There were some greats of history but also some very wicked people that went into my making over the centuries. Who knew?

Vicki , I only count direct connections and cousins and aunts and uncles in this same grouping as real relatives. Like you it 's interesting to see how the tree connects but that's my only interest in the so called big tree. Yes some of my diect line weren't so nice and some died horriably but that;' s how it was then and sometimes now. My x husband's family I could care less about but it's good to know for my son if he ever becomes interested. At age 41 he's still not interested. Vickie direct is direct. From you as far back as you can go with your grand parents and great grandpartents and so on. When I say Henry 1st and so on I mean direct.

As a History major in college I find any connection that my family has to others exciting. Being able to connect my family to important people and events of history makes it more alive. It helps me understand how my family and I fit into the history/events of the world. I have traced my family line back to Magnus Thane in 99AD. That was possible because my family had so many connections to Royality in all parts of the world.

I bet ALL of us in Geni that go back enough are connected to royalty.

Those royals had enough kids both legitiment and illigitment that it's highly possible a lot of us if we go far enough are connected one way or the other and sometimes both ways.

...the odds of any given person being distantly related to royalty are remarkably high, with one estimate suggesting that more than 150 million Americans are of royal descent. This is because when ancestral lines are traced back through time, the number of ancestors doubles with each generation. If any person traced their bloodline back to the year 1500, for example, they would discover about a million ancestors. Although there are relatively few royal figures in history, pedigree collapse explains how so many people can be linked to famous rulers such as Alfred the Great, and indeed how any one person could be said to have a tenuous connection to almost anyone else in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_royal_candidate_theory

Very interesting. Maybe we could invent a "royal o meter" which would indicate how many kings and queens any one person are descended from. Such as 1 to 5 royals, 6 to 10 royals, 11 through 20 royals, 21 through 50 royals, etc. Or would it be that if you are connected to one, you are connected to many because they all intermarried. So if you are descended from one king or queen you are most certainly descended from many. I have not counted the number I have found for myself but it would be scores of them that I have found on GENI. I am meaning to make a list. This does not include the dukes, princesses, counts, etc.

It is purely speculation on my part, but I would think that most people who are descendants of colonial Americans are apt to be direct descendants of English and Scottish royalty. Many of the early settlers had the financial means to colonize the new world, particularly the Virginia settlements. Their means came from accrued wealth that most often connected to aristocracy which in turn was often bequeathed through royal lines. Again, it could be a misplaced conjecture, but I have often wondered about this very subject as a descendant of many early Americans and both English and Scottish royalty.

Early American migration (1610-1660) is middle class English tradesmen to New England and merchant adventurers (younger sons & cavaliers) to the Virginia Colony. Some Scots prisoners of war who lost against Cromwell were shipped off. The number of actual peers to the kingdom who settled is very small and well known.

That ironically more Americans (and Canadians?) can trace descent from royalty more easily than contemporary Englis has to have more to do with pedigree collapse I think.

And also most of those who are descendants of colonial South Americans, since the royal and noble houses of all medieval Europe were connected.

Does South and central America follow the same pattern?

There are distinctly different sets of colonizers in North America, as Melton alluded to.