How George Washington is Related to 24 of the 25 Magna Carta Sureties

Marcus Aurelius

unread,

Jun 23, 2012, 7:41:21 PM6/23/12

to

The following is the URL of a web site entitled: "How George
Washington is Related to 24 of the 25 Magna Carta Sureties"
by Terry J. Booth:

http://washington.ancestryregister.com/WASHINGTON00006HNote2.htm

Yes, incredible as it may seem the founder of the USA and the Champion
of Republican Principles was a descendant of the Magna Carta Barons
who in 1215 forced King John of England to sign the famous Magna
Carta. History repeats itself as George Washington forced George III
of England to extend the sacred principles in the Magna Carta to the
American Colonists!

a425couple

unread,

Jun 26, 2012, 9:01:36 AM6/26/12

to

"Marcus Aurelius" <alexan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...

Interesting. Thank you for posting it.
Hmm, just wondering if, after 20 generations (+/-)
of 'mixing', how "incredible", rare or unusual that is?

John W Kennedy

unread,

Jun 26, 2012, 10:21:24 AM6/26/12

to

On 2012-06-23 23:41:21 +0000, Marcus Aurelius said:

> The following is the URL of a web site entitled: "How George
> Washington is Related to 24 of the 25 Magna Carta Sureties"
> by Terry J. Booth:
>
> http://washington.ancestryregister.com/WASHINGTON00006HNote2.htm
>
> Yes, incredible as it may seem

...to the mathematically illiterate...

> the founder of the USA and the Champion
> of Republican Principles was a descendant

No he wasn't. He was a descendant of 17 of them. He was collaterally
related to 7 more. The last of the 25 has no known descendants.

Didn't you even read the silly thing?

> of the Magna Carta Barons
> who in 1215 forced King John of England to sign the famous Magna
> Carta. History repeats itself as George Washington forced George III
> of England to extend the sacred principles in the Magna Carta to the
> American Colonists!

--
John W Kennedy
"Though a Rothschild you may be
In your own capacity,
As a Company you've come to utter sorrow--
But the Liquidators say,
'Never mind--you needn't pay,'
So you start another company to-morrow!"
-- Sir William S. Gilbert. "Utopia Limited"

Bill

unread,

Jun 26, 2012, 10:32:17 AM6/26/12

to

Not rare, not incredible and not unusual.

Do the sums.

If people had two children then there are about a billion people
descended from each one.

What's interesting is that some idiot thinks he can accurately plot
lines of descent over that period of time...

John W Kennedy

unread,

Jun 26, 2012, 10:47:47 AM6/26/12

to

Among nobility and royalty, that's not so unlikely.

--
John W Kennedy
"I want everybody to be smart. As smart as they can be. A world of
ignorant people is too dangerous to live in."
-- Garson Kanin. "Born Yesterday"

David

unread,

Jun 26, 2012, 11:38:39 AM6/26/12

to

On Jun 26, 9:32 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 06:01:36 -0700, "a425couple"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Marcus Aurelius" <alexander...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...

> >> The following is the URL of a web site entitled: "How George
> >> Washington is Related to 24 of the 25 Magna Carta Sureties"
> >> by Terry J. Booth:
>
> >http://washington.ancestryregister.com/WASHINGTON00006HNote2.htm
>
> >> Yes, incredible as it may seem the founder of the USA and the Champion
> >> of Republican Principles was a descendant of the Magna Carta Barons
> >> who in 1215 forced King John of England to sign the famous Magna
> >> Carta. History repeats itself as George Washington forced George III
> >> of England to extend the sacred principles in the Magna Carta to the
> >> American Colonists!
>
> >Interesting. Thank you for posting it.
> >Hmm, just wondering if, after 20 generations (+/-)
> >of 'mixing', how "incredible", rare or unusual that is?
>
> Not rare, not incredible and not unusual.
>
> Do the sums.
>
> If people had two children then there are about a billion people
> descended from each one.

It's not that easy, since people do marry second and third and fourth
(etc.) cousins, and the larger the pool of related people, the more
likely that people will marry distant relations (particularly if
there's not a lot of mobility, and thus not a lot of choice in
mates). This reduces the number of possible descendants, because with
each intermarriage, there are fewer resulting branches: conceivably
one person could give rise to a stable population of, say, 10,000, all
of whom live in the same county, and all of whom marry other
descendants of that person, so that the number of descendants never
increases into the billions. With royalty, which tends to have
daughters that marry abroad, and where there is a good deal of social
pressure to produce progeny, family trees are probably a bit
'bushier'; and there are countervailing pressures as well, e.g.
inbreeding (as with the Habsburgs), and limitations based on class
(e.g. "ebenbürtigkeit") and religion. And geography plays a role too
-- there are perhaps millions of people in Great Britain, Ireland,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa descended from
William the Conqueror; many, but fewer, in the Netherlands, France, or
Spain; fewer yet in Poland, Hungary, or the Balkans; very few in
Arabia or Japan; and virtually none in Tibet or Mongolia (tourists and
transients aside).

John W Kennedy

unread,

Jul 18, 2012, 10:47:06 AM7/18/12

to

On 2012-06-23 23:41:21 +0000, Marcus Aurelius said:

This was moronic last June, and it's even more moronic for you to
repeat it after we explained it all to you then. Since you are clearly
a mindless, sub-human lout, GOOD-BYE!

--
John W Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"