GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1996-10 > 0844983332


From: John Yohalem <>
Subject: Re: Charlemagne's descendants
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 17:35:32 -0400


> 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

Well, it's like this. Everyone alive is descended from kings and from
varmints, but the kings keep better records.

We happen to know all Charlemagne's legit and legitimized descendants for
quite a few generations. These reveal that, unlike the average Dagobert in
the street, they (a) moved around a lot, crossing all fronteirs, and (b)
royal males tend to have more opportunities than most men to spread their
seed. Women are not only constrained to obey more often than with
commoners, they are also more eager, perhaps, to do so, on two principles:
(1) the glamour of power, which is mighty, and (2) political and economic
advantages of doing it with the big enchilada.

Accordingly, whether Chuck was horny or not (all his recorded issue is in
wedlock, after all, but he married five times), his descendants had more
opportunities to spread it around, and over a far wider area than just
about anyone else living at that time could have hoped for for his
descendants. (Perhaps Conrad of Auxerre, whose daughters married the son
and grandson of Charles and whose own sons founded the so-called kingdom of
Transjurane Burgundy, not to mention the Guelf dynasty, equals Charles in
number of descendants -- there's no way you can track either one in
comprehensive detail.)

So if we're all looking for a common eurocentric ancestor, Charles is as
likely a place to look as anyone, and a great deal more so than almost
anyone else.

Jean Coeur de Lapin

This thread: