GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1996-10 > 0844965125


From: John Yohalem <>
Subject: Re: Charlemagne's descendants
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 12:32:05 -0400


People say "western Europe" out of caution -- eastern Europe, much more
subject to invasions of all sorts, which mess up the records, never mind
the blood lines, no doubt is mostly descended from Big Chuck, but there are
all sorts of pockets (Lapland, Bucovina) where it might be tough to prove.

----------
> From: MrSandmich <>
> To:
> Subject: Charlemagne's descendants
> Date: Tuesday, October 08, 1996 9:07 PM
>
> I noticed that in the many messages regarding living descendants of
> Charlemagne, it was stated that virtually everyone of western European
> descent could claim descent from Charlemagne. Many of the eastern
European
> countries also claimed descent from Charlemagne.

<snip>

>Moreover, hasn't anyone taken into consideration that Hungary took
> its name from their Asian invaders of 1500 years ago.

1100 years ago. Let's not go overboard.

>Certainly, it would
> not be unreasonable to assume that most people living in Hungary today
> have a trace of Asian blood in them.

You can see it in Magyar cheekbones -- but is this Magyar or the subsequent
invasions of Cumans and Mongols? Cheekbones and language are inherited in
entirely different ways. They tested the blood types of the Icelanders some
years ago, to see if they matched the prevalence in Scandinavia, and they
didn't -- they were mostly descended from Irish slaves kidnapped by the
vikings. Hoho.

>Lastly, the Crusaders who went to the
> "holy land" are certain to have left behind some of their genes in the
> local peoples.

Oh barely. It wasn't as complete or constant as the Mongol or Cuman
invasions. Even rape doesn't impregnate that often. Only a few small armies
ever went overland.

>This whole conversation regarding which groups of people do
> and do not descend from Charlemagne is oversimplified. There are many
> other examples of early contacts which could have potentially taken
> Charlemagnes genes to other parts of the globe.

Yes, but we weren't saying no one else was descended from Chuck; we were
saying that everyone in Western Europe was, and hinting therefore that half
the world probably is.

What about that lady they figured out in Africa from whom all modern
humanity descend, huh? How many of you ever write to her? HUH? It wouldn't
hurt.

>As for the comment about
> the Irish being descendants of Charlemagne. Come on, all animosities
> aside, the English and Irish have been mixing their genes for centuries.
> This whole topic has been filled with undertones of eugenics. The bottom
> line is that nearly everyone of European descent is descended from
> Charlemagne.That number is certainly in the billions and I hardly see how
> this fact alone makes any of his descendants more special than any other
> person on the planet.

Since it's not traceable in 99% of cases (rough estimate: source: Thin Air,
Inc.) of course it doesn't. Nobody said it does. Except where property is
involved, or immunity to certain diseases, descent doesn't make anyone
better than anyone else, but it sure is entertaining. What's _your_
problem?

Jean Coeur de Lapin
-- as a descendant of the High Priest Aaron, elder brother of Moses, I can
trace my family back to Adam, with a tiny gap between 70 AD and 1783.
(Infinitesimal.) That gives me two thousand years on the Habsburgs, unless
they really are descended from King Priam, Aaron's contemporary. That and a
buck fifty gets me a ride on the subway, and I treasure the privilege.

As to whether I'm descended from Charlemagne ... hmmmm. (By marriage,
maybe.)

This thread: