Royal descent

A royal descent is a lineal descent from a monarch. Royal descent is sometimes claimed as a mark of distinction and is seen as a desirable goal of genealogy research. Pretenders and those hoping to improve their social status have often claimed royal descent and, as a result, fabricated lineages are common. [ [http://www.progenealogists.com/greatbritain/medievalgenealogy.htm Medieval Genealogy and Family History] ] The importance of royal descent to some genealogists has been criticized. [Conniff, Richard. "Genealogy is Bunk." "Smithsonian Magazine". July 2007.]

Due to the incompleteness of records, the number of people who have a provable royal descent is much smaller than the number who actually have it. [Transactions of the Royal Historical Society: Sixth Series (Royal Historical Society Transactions) by Royal Historical Society] Genealogists and geneticists have attempted to estimate the percentage of various populations that have a royal descent. Royal descent is closely related to the concept of the most recent common ancestor of all living humans or of a certain geographical area, because if a monarch lived before the time of the most recent common ancestor, then the monarch could be a common ancestor of all humans.

Europe

It is a long tradition that royalty marry only those of their own class. Because of this, "the ruling houses of Europe have always been closely related to one another", and the descent from one monarch will be found in many other families - all present European monarchs, and a great many pretenders, are descendants of William I of England, for example.Maclagan, Michael, "Lines of Succession"]

The practice of restrictive marriages has been noted as having increased over the years: "the passage of time strengthened the conviction that royalty only allied with royalty, and from the sixteenth century onwards marriages between crown and commoner became rarer and rarer." This is one reason why descent from more recent monarchs is rarer amongst commoners than from monarchs further back.

Several descendants of European royal families who live ordinary lives today are descendants from the illegitimate children of royalty. Since illegitimate children could not marry into other royal families (because their status made them unacceptable to most monarchs), these children had to marry upper class or middle class families from their own country. [ Eleanor Herman. "Sex with Kings"] [Eleanor Herman. "Sex with Queens"]

Another reason for the greater number of descendants from chronologically distant monarchs is that likelihood of descent from a monarch increases in direct proportion to the length of time between the monarch's death and the birth of the particular descendant. Thus, "statistically, most of the inhabitants of Western Europe are probably descended from William the Conqueror; they are equally likely to be descended from the man who groomed his charger."

United States

Royal descent is common among residents of the United States. It has been estimated that probably as many as 150 million Americans (half of the population) have traceable royal European descent. [ [http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=3349 Comments on Royal Descent] ] More than half of the Presidents of the United States (27 of 42) have had a traceable royal descent or a wife with a traceable royal descent. [ [http://worldroots.com/brigitte/famous/p/presidents.htm Presidents and their wives with royal ancestry] ] According to American genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts, an expert on royal descent, most Americans with significant New England Yankee, Mid-Atlantic Quaker, or Southern Planter ancestry are descended from medieval kings, especially those of England, Scotland, and France. Some Americans may have royal descents through German immigrants who had an illegitimate descent from German royalty. [Wollmershaüser, Friedrich R. [http://www.progenealogists.com/germany/articles/gnobility.htm German Noble Descent in American Family Tradition] .]

Due to primogeniture, many colonists of high social status were younger children of English aristocratic families who came to America looking for land because, given their birth order, they could not inherit. Many of these immigrants maintained high standing where they settled. They could often claim royal descent through a female line or illegitimate descent. Many Americans descend from these 17th-century British colonists who had royal descent. There were at least 650 colonists with traceable royal ancestry [http://www.newenglandancestors.org/store/browse/product.asp?sku=715758438 Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States] (NEHGS Store description page)] Roberts, Gary Boyd. "The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants." Genealogical Publishing, 2008. [http://www.genealogical.com/products/The%20Royal%20Descents%20of%20600%20Immigrants/4963.html] ] , and 387 left descendants in America (almost always numbering many thousands, and some as many as one million). These colonists with royal descent settled in every state, but a large majority lived in Massachusetts or Virginia. Several families, who settled in those states, over the two hundred years or more since the colonial land grants, interwinded their branches to the point that almost everyone was somehow related to everyone else. One writer observed, "like a tangle of fish hooks" [Lady of Arlington by John Perry] .

Over time, opposing factors have affected the percentage of Americans who have provable royal descent. The passage of the generations has further intermingled the ancestry of the English colonists' descendants, thus increasing the percentage who descend from one of the immigrants with royal ancestry. At the same time, however, waves of post-colonial immigrants from other countries decreased the percentage who have royal descent.

Africa

Royal descent plays an important role in many African societies; authority and property tend to be lineally derived. Among tribes which recognize a single ruler, the hereditary blood line of the rulers (who early European travelers described as kings, queens, princes, etc., using the terminology of European monarchy) is akin to a dynasty.cite journal
author = Richards, A.I.
year = 1961
title = African Kings and Their Royal Relatives
journal = The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
volume = 91
issue = 2
pages = 135–150
url = http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0307-3114(196107%2F12)91%3A2%3C135%3AAKATRR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
accessdate = 2008-02-10
doi = 10.2307/2844410] Among groups which have less centralized power structures, dominant clans are still recognized. Oral history would be the primary method of transmitting genealogies, and both nobles and commoners base their status on descent.

Proving royal descent

Royal descent is easier to prove than descent from less notable ancestors, because genealogies and public records are typically fuller, better known and well preserved in the case of royal descent than in the case of descent from common people. It is only since the 20th century that family history has been an interest pursued by people outside the upper classes. Hence, the continuous lines of descent from royal ancestors are much better researched and established than those from other ancestors. Until the parish record system in the 16th century, and civil registration in the 19th century, family records are fuller for landowners than for ordinary people.

Between 1903 and 1911, the Marquis de Ruvigny published volumes entitled "The Blood Royal of Britain" which attempted to name all the then-living descendants of Edward III of England. He gave up the exercise after publishing the names of about 40,000 living people, but his own estimate was that the total of those of royal descent who could be proved and named if he completed his work at that time was 100,000 people. His work, however, was heavily dependent upon those whose names were readily ascertainable from works of genealogical reference, such as Peerages and Burke's Landed Gentry.

The English geneticist Professor Stephen Jones estimates that 25% of the British population is descended from the Plantagenets.

The phrase "English descent" does not, of course, mean "purely English descent". As soon as an immigrant family marries into an indigenous family, it acquires all the ancestors of its indigenous parent, and is therefore no less likely to be able to claim a royal descent than a non-immigrant family.

Lineage societies for royal descendants exist, such as the [http://royalancestry.org/index.htm National Societies of Royal and Noble Ancestry] , which is made up of the Society of Charlemagne Ancestry, Society of Magna Charta Ancestry, and Society of Royal Bastard Ancestry.

ee also

* Descent from antiquity
* Descent from Genghis Khan
* Genealogy of the British Royal Family
* Inbreeding
* Most recent common ancestor

References

External links

* [http://humphrysfamilytree.com/famous.descents.html#links Royal Descents of Famous People] by Mark Humphrys (includes many references to other sources)
* Olson, Steve. [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200205/olson The Royal We] "Atlantic Monthly." May 2002.
* [http://www.thepeerage.com/ ThePeerage.com]