Where should Richard III be buried?

[crazy canuck]

Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Japanese royal family.

No idea how many generations.

Ah, good guess

[crazy canuck]

Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Looked it up, I would never have guessed it.

[jimmy olsen]

Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Japanese royal family.

No idea how many generations.

There were Empresses thrown in there.

[mongers]

Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Nepal ?

[garbon]

Pop quiz: which royal family holds the record for generations of direct male descent?

Extra credit: how many generations?

Japanese royal family.

No idea how many generations.

There were Empresses thrown in there.

From wiki:

Women were allowed to succeed (but there existed no known children of theirs whose father did not also happen to be an agnate of the imperial house, thus there is neither a precedent that a child of an imperial woman with a non-imperial man could inherit, nor a precedent forbidding it for children of empresses).

[OttoVonBismarck]

In regard to common ancestry and isolated populations, it is generally thought for sure that you only have to go back about 5,000 for a common ancestor to everyone and in fact there is strong evidence some historical figures alive in the past 2,000 years may literally be a common ancestor to huge portions of living humans today. The Genghis Khan effect can exaggerate this, as he had the pick of the healthiest women, had a huge harem and fathered many children even outside his harem. His offspring were all highly prized catches more or less, and had almost the best selection of women, huge harems, and tons of children even outside their core group of women. For this reason parts of central there is a substantial percentage of the total population who have Genghis Khan's Y chromosome.

Europeans started coming into contact with aborigines in Australia and Amazonian natives in the past 500 years. There are scattered tribes in Amazonia that had virtually or in fact no European contact at all until the latter part of the 20th century. But, there is virtually no evidence these tribes had no contact with anyone, they just had no contact with the West. In fact, many of the most isolated Amazonia tribes, numbering sometimes less than a few hundred, regularly interbred with other close by tribes. It kind of makes sense, practices like that would be important for social and vitality reasons. So it's in fact the case that when Spaniards started fathering children with South American natives over 500 years ago, their genetic influence went much deeper into Amazonia than Europeans themselves did for hundreds of years. This makes sense, natives have reasons to go back into the bush, Europeans not nearly so much, and people fuck each other constantly and have kids and spread genetic material from tribe to tribe.

If you do the math, going back enough generations you quickly end up with more mathematically possible ancestors than humans who lived at that point in time. What this means of course is all of us are descended from some individuals through multiple lines (pedigree collapse.) Thus with any species, go back far enough and you enter a situation where every person alive at that point in time falls into two categories. One is persons with no single living descendent today. The other are people whom everyone is descended from today. The point in human history in which all living persons either have no descendants or all living persons are common ancestors to all presently living humans is only estimated at furthest back to be 15,000 years ago and many think it is as recent as 5000 years ago.

[Admiral Yi]

Nepal ?

Nope.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Nepal ?

Nope.

The Frenchies? My guess is based on the fact that I don't believe France ever had a regnal Queen, and that IIRC all the French Kings til the Revolution were male-line descendants of Hugh Capet.

If not then my guess might be one of the dynasties that ruled England? (Just based on the possibility maybe the record for male-descent isn't that extensive and thus it's a family we don't think of as having ruled all that long.)

[Razgovory]

In regard to common ancestry and isolated populations, it is generally thought for sure that you only have to go back about 5,000 for a common ancestor to everyone and in fact there is strong evidence some historical figures alive in the past 2,000 years may literally be a common ancestor to huge portions of living humans today. The Genghis Khan effect can exaggerate this, as he had the pick of the healthiest women, had a huge harem and fathered many children even outside his harem. His offspring were all highly prized catches more or less, and had almost the best selection of women, huge harems, and tons of children even outside their core group of women. For this reason parts of central there is a substantial percentage of the total population who have Genghis Khan's Y chromosome.

Europeans started coming into contact with aborigines in Australia and Amazonian natives in the past 500 years. There are scattered tribes in Amazonia that had virtually or in fact no European contact at all until the latter part of the 20th century. But, there is virtually no evidence these tribes had no contact with anyone, they just had no contact with the West. In fact, many of the most isolated Amazonia tribes, numbering sometimes less than a few hundred, regularly interbred with other close by tribes. It kind of makes sense, practices like that would be important for social and vitality reasons. So it's in fact the case that when Spaniards started fathering children with South American natives over 500 years ago, their genetic influence went much deeper into Amazonia than Europeans themselves did for hundreds of years. This makes sense, natives have reasons to go back into the bush, Europeans not nearly so much, and people fuck each other constantly and have kids and spread genetic material from tribe to tribe.

If you do the math, going back enough generations you quickly end up with more mathematically possible ancestors than humans who lived at that point in time. What this means of course is all of us are descended from some individuals through multiple lines (pedigree collapse.) Thus with any species, go back far enough and you enter a situation where every person alive at that point in time falls into two categories. One is persons with no single living descendent today. The other are people whom everyone is descended from today. The point in human history in which all living persons either have no descendants or all living persons are common ancestors to all presently living humans is only estimated at furthest back to be 15,000 years ago and many think it is as recent as 5000 years ago.

As to the Australians I think you are looking at it backwards.  The way you phrased it, people disagreeing with you would have to prove a negative.  There is very little evidence that native Australians had much contact with anyone before the Europeans showed up.  There may have been some trade in the north, and with Maori but evidence is fairly weak.  Considering that the Australians lived in myrad bands and were probably the most primitive society on Earth at the time when they met Europeans indicates that what ever contact that some bands had with outsiders was minimal.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In the case of the Australian aborigines, my point was the moment Europeans started living on Australia their genes would have spread through those populations rapidly, even to aborigines who did not directly interact with Europeans. I wasn't saying prior to European exploration/colonization of Australia, that aborigines had outside contact. I don't know if they did or don't, I don't know much about that part of the world's history. I do know that in the few hundred years since contact more than enough generations have passed for the aborigines to share a common ancestor with everyone else, dating back no further than 5-15,000 years.

[Admiral Yi]

The Frenchies? My guess is based on the fact that I don't believe France ever had a regnal Queen, and that IIRC all the French Kings til the Revolution were male-line descendants of Hugh Capet.

Bingo! 14 generations of direct male descent in the Capetian dynasty.

[DGuller]

The Frenchies? My guess is based on the fact that I don't believe France ever had a regnal Queen, and that IIRC all the French Kings til the Revolution were male-line descendants of Hugh Capet.

Bingo! 14 generations of direct male descent in the Capetian dynasty.

How ironic it had to end with decapetation.

[MadImmortalMan]

 

[Caliga]

In the case of the Australian aborigines, my point was the moment Europeans started living on Australia their genes would have spread through those populations rapidly, even to aborigines who did not directly interact with Europeans. I wasn't saying prior to European exploration/colonization of Australia, that aborigines had outside contact. I don't know if they did or don't, I don't know much about that part of the world's history. I do know that in the few hundred years since contact more than enough generations have passed for the aborigines to share a common ancestor with everyone else, dating back no further than 5-15,000 years.

I think there's some speculation that the Australian Aborigines had sporadic contact with the Chinese as well as some of the Indonesian peoples.  There's some connection between sea snails, the Chinese, and the Aborigines.  That crazy dude mentioned this in his 1421 book about Zheng He but I've seen it mentioned by legitimate historians too.

[Maximus]

I don't think sea snails share mitochondrial DNA with the Chinese.