GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1996-10 > 0844973377


From: Gordon Fisher <>
Subject: Re: Charlemagne's descendants
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 14:49:37 -0400


At 12:32 PM 10/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>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.)
>
>
>
>

I guess I've already had my say on this topic, but I can't resist one more
comment. First, though, let me say that the remark I made about the Irish
perhaps not being descended from Charlemagne to the extent that the English
*may* be, was not meant very seriously --- I thought it was a little joke,
which is always dangerous on the Internet. On the other hand, while the
Irish (Celts ???) and the English (Anglo-Saxons and Jutes ???) have
certainly interbred to some extent, it appears to me to be an empirical
question whether or not everyone in Ireland today is related to everyone in
England today except by way of a past long preceding the reign of Charlie
the Magnate (to formulate the question rather loosely).

I still can't see why it is assumed that there is such promiscuous mixing of
genetic material over time. As I asked before, is everyone also descended
from the millions who were living at the time of Charlemagne, or even from
the hundreds or thousands of nobles who lived at that time? It seems to me
that the arguments I've seen on behalf of universal or almost universal
present day descent from Charlemagne (perhaps confined to some geographical
region such as Western Europe or Europe as a whole, or perhaps applied to
the whole world) apply equally well to anyone else living at the same time
as Charlemagne (but not a direct descendant of Charlemagne). Someone
suggested that kings traveled and spread their seed more than most people.
I don't know if Charlemagne was as promiscuous as, say, Henry I of England
(what does Einhard say?), but even that wouldn't explain away all those
other potential ancestors of ours.

Gordon Fisher

This thread: