Henry IV of England is your 24th great grandfather.

I agree Ian, The exploration and understanding of history is just as valuable and the discovery of this or that ancestor...I do have my DNA test underway, and one never knows the relevence of our place in the Universe...so be brave and see what the numbers say....As it turns out...my line was completely missing from GNEI until I got here last october....and the ancestory fills in a fairly large void from 1700 to the present....The big deal will come proving that Perrott aka John Rice 1600 faked his death and began life anew here in America...and who he became once here....I wish you well in your exploits...and enjoy reading about your journey here on GENI....DCR1948

Gustavo, I'm not a math guy. I don't even know how to do it on a calculator. My shortcut is to Google it:

two to the 30th power

Is the same as asking how many ancestors we had 30 generations ago.

Dale, it's not a generational thing, it's two different conversations.
Good luck with finding your piece of paper.

Well it looks that I did take a turn at Empress Matilda for the path to William the Conqueror, but she is the only woman in the continuous line from Henry the IV. However if I didn't turn there I can still just keep going up the Geoffroy V, Count of Anjou, Maine and Mortain Tree as continuous Granfathers as well. I'm still not sure how far up that line I can go yet, I got tired of clicking. :)

It looks that line stops at this fella, Geoffroy II comte de Gâtinais So from henry the IV until I can't go any further that way is continuous Granfathers.

Geoffrey Count of Gatinais is your 30th great grandfather.

But via Matilda of England I can just keep going up all the Dukes of Normandy as well as all continuous grandfathers. I'm not sure where this line stops yet.

OK then from William the conqueror all the way till it ends at this fella... (No Name) Are all continuous grandfathers!! :)

Dale, I wish you the best of luck but I want to stay out of this. I hope some of the research I did pays off for you in the end, but last I heard you were still rejecting whatever doesn't fit your theory so it's not helpful to you right now.

Best of luck to you, Dale.

Mentions of Kvenland (which i only learnt of last year thru Geni) always make me think of Kevin Rudd, 26th Prime Minister of Australia, the current Prime Minister of Australia.

Alex, what is Kevin Rudds connection to Kvenland? I think it is an area close to Finland or is Finland isn't it? I'm still learning myself.

I don't understand. IF someone is your 24th grandfather, you are still a decendent of theirs, even if remote. Perhaps it did not come down from your fathers line but so what. Is not my mothers grandfather my great grandfather as well? I understand maybe I will not have their DNA but they are still a great grandfather. I agree that a 14th cousin X times removed is not the same thing.

No ancestry can be tenuous. You either descend from someone or you do not. I once had a quarrel with a gent who was descended from Henry VII. He argued that it didn't count because the line of descent it passed through many females to get him. How sexist!

The Crown itself passes through males and females, but the royal blood is not diluted by gender.

Vicki, I think you understand perfectly, your example is right on. Let's see if I do. The male defining chromosome is not present in a female, but selections to the tune of 1/50th (+/-) of all the genetic material are present from her 24th great-grandfather. Conceivably if we had great granddads, and her DNA we could compare and tell which parts came from that ancestor.

A 14th cousin would share 1/28th of the DNA of the common ancestor, making them 1/56th from cousin to cousin + twice the number of removed's.

Dale feels he can spot likenesses between generations through visual clues, or appearance, and maybe he can. If indeed he can it is a matter of intuition at this point because the science isn't there to support him, and he isn't scientist enough to prove it himself.

Yes, I spotted likeness....some profound and some less so....The real thrust of this DNA is not the Past 14th generation but to the more recent DNA additons by the women who also connect to the more ancient lines....What we can say with certainty now is that X Chromosome carries the 5 sites that control most phenotype expressions that defiine the face....Girls get one X from dad and one X from mom....so girls carry the ancestorial DNA messages that recombine every generation at varyiable rates....The information the recent females in the lineage have the full force of the FATHER/MOTHER of ancient people at play and this is the amazing part of DNA messaging.....our most ancient of ancestors are alive in us today....And that's a profound acknowledgement of our connection to them....Im a retired police officer/ executive with a 100% conviciton rate in the courts where I served....so stand by....I will make my case more clearly once I have the required paper in hand....Best regards DCR 1948

Maybe we can cut people some slack if they use slightly different terminology. Isn't a cultural accident that our surnames follow the male line? When I say direct ancestors, I mean all my ancestors. I say "direct male line" or "direct female line" if I mean something different.

But, I can live in a world where some people mean their male line when they say direct ancestors ;)

Dale, I apologize if I offended you. I don't keep up with genetic science - most of what I know I learned from you and Justin a couple of months ago. So first maybe you are scientist enough, and second maybe genetic science is closer to matching your intuition than I believed. As a trained observer you will have higher cognition than many. When I say "intuition" I simply mean the things that science hasn't explained yet. Science cannot begin to explain consciousness, but anyone who has it knows it exists. It's the same for intuition, faith, ESP and many other un-scientific expressions, albeit in smaller numbers than consciousness. So my intent was never to belittle you in any way. I doubt the doubters, not you and was simplifying the explanation is all.

No apologies required, at all....In fact I thank you for your post....in checking on your name so close to my FAmily DOLLIVER I fnd that the SEAGERS are in your line as well...My 2nd Great Grandmother is Polly Seager daughter of William Seager....I did not happen to see Wm. Name but there are a bunch and so I coppied the relationships for fuirther study with my family next week and later in a FAMILY confabulation of Study....I appreciated your comments and no offense whatever was taken...Best regards DCR 1948

Gotcha Justin, I think the proper way too.... would probably be to say direct male line or direct female line. I guess I have just always thought your male line was considered your direct line? I guess because of the surname being directly passed to the following son?

E. Behn Rothe, that's my idea of a direct line , also. Straight back to the ancestors.My cousins and uncles and aunt of course will follow the same trail as I, but then it becomes their direct line,

Vicki, you are right. If someone is your 24th GGF you are still a descendent of theirs, and no more remote than anyone else. And I agree, if they didn't come down from the father's side, so what? My mother contributed half my genetics, and probably most of my cultural inheritance. So, I do not exclude the maternal line. Oh, and I have only daughters, but I still expect my line to continue on.

A cousin is not an ancestor, as you expressed, but half each ancestor's DNA came from each parent, regardless of male or female ancestors. So I count female ancestors just as male ancestors.

Well then this is a direct line lol because every single person in the line from the start me to Henry IV is either my granfather or grandmother. except my father. :)

Michael Rhodes

Mr Rhodes, you said it so well.

As a matter of fact from me until William the Conquror there is only 8 women all the rest are men. This line does come from my father, but turns at my grandma Winton (Reed)(Prater) and runs up through her family.

Dale, I think you still don't quite understand how this works. The five genes you're talking about aren't on the X chromosome, and they're not the only genes involved.

Think about this for a minute -- men inherit a Y chromosome from their father and an X chromosome from their mother. If the genes for facial appearance were only on the X chromosome, then men would always look like their mothers, never like their fathers.

A recent study showed that five genes affect five different aspects of facial appearance. These five are PRDM16 (on chromosome 1), PAX3 (on chromosome 2), TP63 (on chromosome 3), C5orf50 (on chromosome 5), and COL17A1 (on chromosome 10). None on chromosome X.

No one believes that these are the only five genes that affect facial appearance. Geneticists think there are probably dozens of genes that contribute in different ways.

Well you are the Authority: I read that article from Austria and they were emphatic about the X carrying the message...But what you described as nothing on X sound suspicious or else the daughters could only look like their father....I reconciled that father's could only be represened in their sons by a prior male informing the mother's X DNA 2 or more generations back.... I yield on this....for now. Mt. Batton and The Current Greek Prince Phillip being the case for Charles..W. IF it's carried on Y how do women get their faces? Sites not genes is the way the article read that I saw. I'll rrefraine from posting this line of thought....DCR

Dale, this would be much easier in person, I think ;)

The five sites aren't on the X or the Y. There are still 22 other pairs of chromosomes. They're numbered from 1 to 22. So, say with chromosome 10, you got one copy from your father and one copy from your mother. So, you have two copies of (say) COL17A1.

What the study found (much simplified) was the people with one copy of particular variation of COL17A1 were more likely overall to have a wider nasal bridge and eyes further apart than people with other common variations.

There were similar results with the other four genes, where a particular common variant seems be influencing a particular part of the facial landscape.

So, you can see how something like how far apart someone's eyes might be is (apparently) associated with a gene that's traveling down the family line randomly. Sometimes it will come from someone's father, sometimes from their mother.

If you go back 10 generations, you had 1,024 ancestors. They each had two copies of COL17A1. So, 10 generations ago your ancestors collectively had 2,048 copies of COL17A1. You got two of those copies, and it's totally random which two you got.

Im repeating myself....I need to go to a site for a PRIMER COURSE....I have no reference point now....so good night....I'll see what I was reading and repoost if appropriate....DCR

E. Behn Rothe

I work the same way you do. However many variations on G Father or G Mother they are all ancestors. I happen to have liked my Grandmothers, and my children liked their grandmothers. They still love the last living grandparent they have.

Even my step children like having a living grandparent, and I know my stepson is not my child, but I don't hyphenate his child. She calls me Grandpa. Ok, so I'm not an ancestor, but my wife's children are on the tree with appropriate note of their actual father. Which doesn't count in ancestry, but I think we are smart enough to figure that out.

So, yes, I keep the tree to have a record of not only biological ancestry, but cultural ancestry. And I have it arranged to make the relationships clear.

So, your references to cousins and removed etc is quite accurate. Our ancestors are always direct, there is no such thing as indirect ancestry. So I also go for the actual line of descent, but with listings of siblings along the way, but I don't pursue them the same way. It's all family history, and that is what I am more interested in, not genetic history.

Oh, and I loved your Hershey comment. It does cover the subject.

I have been reading your very interesting posts.

It came to my mind what relationships there could be between me and a number of the participants, here's what I've found:

IAN WINTON: 22nd Cousin-Common ancestor: Ferdinand III "The saint", King of Castille

VICKI THOMAS: 21st Cousin x2 R-Common Ancestor: Alphonse IX, King of León and Galicia

ALEX MOSES: 25th Cousin x3 R-Common ancestor: Friedrich II Von Staufen, father of Frederick Redbeard, King of Germany

E. BEHN ROTHE: 23rd Cousin 0x R-Common Ancestor: Arnoul de Guines,. III Count of Guines

DROLLI: 21st Cousin 2x-Common Ancestor: Alphonse X "The Just Man", King of Castille and León,

JUSTIN SWANSTRÖM: 19th Cousin 0x R through two lines: Common Ancestors: Pedro Aljubarrota González de Mendoza, 1st Lord of Hita and Buitrago, and Enrique II, King of Castille, I checked the names of several other participants and they all are between 18th and 21st Cousins, linked mostly by Alphonse IX, and Alphonse IX, it happens that Isabella of Castille, descendant of the Alphonses, married Edmund Langley 1st Duke of York and that was the origin of a multiplicity of links between the families Spain and England, and thus their American descendants.

On the other hand, and this is a question to Justin: Is there a possibility that memory could be stored in one or more of the human genes through centuries? This is something that puzzles me, because, in my case I have English and German ancestros other than the ones I've mentioned, and it took me very little effort to learn English and German, and so did my 4 children, all adults today. At the same time memory is also a tool for evolution don't you think so ?