HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Home & Family » Ancestry/Genealogy (Group) » According to 23andme, I'm...

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 07:50 AM

According to 23andme, I'm related to Louis XVI! Any other royals here?

At first I was skeptical, but they were pretty specific about the haplogroup.

12 replies, 3401 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply According to 23andme, I'm related to Louis XVI! Any other royals here? (Original post)
bif Apr 2019 OP
htuttle Apr 2019 #1
Ponietz Apr 2019 #2
rampartc Apr 2019 #3
Soxfan58 Apr 2019 #4
COLGATE4 Apr 2019 #5
marble falls Dec 2020 #12
The Genealogist Apr 2019 #6
Spider Jerusalem Apr 2019 #7
HeiressofBickworth Apr 2019 #8
wishstar May 2019 #9
dgibby Sep 2019 #10
Tintweezl Dec 2020 #11

Response to bif (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 07:56 AM

1. Sure, both my wife and I -- one of the King Louis' and also the Plantagenets

A large number of people who can trace at least one line back to early colonial days are also related to many of the same royals, and almost all of the royal families of Europe were related. The Europeans in the early days of the American colony were kind of inbred.

Basically, if you find you're related to one of them, you probably related to all of them somehow. It's still fun to trace it back. Geni.com and Ancestry both let you refer to other people's research (if they made it public), so you don't usually have to do all the work yourself. And it can mostly be done on the computer nowadays, instead of trudging around cemeteries, looking for old headstones, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bif (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 07:58 AM

2. Keep it in perspective

Geneticist Adam Rutherford pointed out that family trees grow backwards exponentially, so the amount of ancestors people should have from the ninth century is larger than the amount of people who were alive during the ninth century. That means anyone with European ancestry is related to King Charlemagne.

https://gizmodo.com/dont-get-too-excited-if-a-dna-test-says-you-have-ancien-1706754078

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bif (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 08:03 AM

3. i have an ancestor who was a captain in marie anroinette's guard

he left france in 1789 (just ahead of the guilletine) to help found gallipolis, ohio and to fight with andrew jackson at new orleans. he was an aristocrat but i can't find royalty in his background.

a geneology search is a fun way to spend a recovery from an illness or other down time in your life. there are many interesting facts in everyone's family,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bif (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 08:40 AM

4. Louie the IV

So hi cousin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bif (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 08:57 AM

5. Well, not to go bragging

but I've learned that I am directly related to the manservant who got to wipe up the boot prints the Tsar of Russia left when he tromped around in muddy boots. So there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 10:05 AM

12. Mine stole Richard III's horse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bif (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 09:02 AM

6. I've got no DNA evidence like this

I've seen family trees that suggest I am descended from royalty. Considering the state of record keeping in the past, and that so many family trees are embellished, I don't buy it. My own grandmother was guilty of bias toward records that made her lineage look more high faluting than it was, despite major issues with the records she favored. The last I checked, my paternal haplogroup was I1a

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bif (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2019, 04:27 PM

7. 23andMe told me the same thing (but haplogroups are many thousands of years old).

So "you share a male-line ancestor with Louis XVI" and "you share a female-line ancestor with Marie Antoinette" don't really mean much.


With AncestryDNA and GEDmatch I was able to verify that I have shared ancestors with Harry Truman, though? Which is a lot more recent (and I actually know their names).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bif (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 11:24 PM

8. I've researched for over 45 yrars

So I obviously did it mostly the old way (letters, libraries, courthouses, cemeteries, etc.)

Another poster said that the early settlers in "The Colonies" were related to royalty. The cause was the law where the first born male received all. The second and other sons were expected to go make their own fortunes. The New World was that opportunity.

Long way of saying that my research found the one that got me one step from the throne. Prince John, Duke of Lancaster, son of King ****** don't remember right now. I'm on my tablet and my genealogy program is on the desktop at the other end of the house and I'm temporarily bed-bound due to back issue. I think it was one of the Edwards.

Ultimately, my line goes through the Plantagenets and Tudors, ending with King Henry vii (but not the more famous King Henry viii). Not really that special. If you can find the documentation back that far, it was more likely records were kept on royalty. I've used Burke's Dormant and Extinct Peerages for some family lineages. It is sorted by surname and it's available on-line. I've also used Wikipedia for narrative about the more well-known individuals.

It's a great hobby -- history, people, events. Not at all like taking a history course in school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bif (Original post)

Fri May 3, 2019, 08:43 PM

9. Descended from King Malcolm/Queen Margaret, King David, Robert the Bruce and Robt 1,11, and 111

When i first came across the Scottish royal lineage on a DNA cousin's tree on Ancestry, I was skeptical until I read the historical research compiled by Adrian Benjamin Burke and published in the Genealogist magazine in 2013 and by the NY Genealogical Society. Burke and other researchers and historians spent 5 years tracing the ancestral records both in NY and Scotland of the lineage of the Duncanson sisters who emigrated to New Netherlands in 1600's. I am descended from Mary Duncanson and Pieter Loockermans who settled in NY.

Not royal but DNA evidence shows that I am related to Otzi the Iceman since my mother shares his K maternal haplotype and my father has the same paternal Y DNA G haplotype as Otzi. Makes sense since Otzi was found in Alps near border of Italy and Austria. My mother was Italian and my father's Y DNA haplotype is most commonly found in Austrian men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bif (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 11:36 AM

10. Yes,

I'm the 43 Great Granddaughter of the Kings of Denmark and Norway, but it hasn't been confirmed by DNA yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bif (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2020, 12:25 PM

11. Yeah, but....

The average MRCA (most recent common ancestor) of any haplogroup, maternal or paternal, is 9500 years.

This means that in 7,500 B.C., a caveman and cavewoman had a cavebaby who had a mutation in Y DNA or mtDNA that became the founder effect for a new haplogroup that went on, over the course of 40,000 generations to eventually produce you and, on a totally separate pedigree, one of the royals. Any remnant of this shared ancestor DNA-wise would be less than 1cm or 0.0000001%. The odds that you and the royal inherited that same fraction of DNA is that number squared by itself, or 0.0000001% of 0.0000001% and even if you did, 1cm is not enough to even register as a match on any autosomal site because everybody has 1cm that matches everyone else just based on randomness.

It’s a cute marketing ploy by the DNA sites but meaningless as to “related to” a royal. It means you are 40,000th cousins many times removed just as everyone is to everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread