William the Conqueror, King of England - Hunting William the Conqueror's DNA

Started by Justin Swanström on Monday, July 22, 2013


Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 31-60 of 255 posts
Private User
7/24/2013 at 3:30 PM

William the Conqueror, King of England my grandson's 26th great grandfather.

7/24/2013 at 3:55 PM

Justin, If we assume that I1 haplogroup is superseeded by R1b and that's the Wm the Conq. Bloodline that informs the the Plantagenant line of kings, then are we not left with I1, rare in S. Wales as a Vying line of Leader, such as the Tudors? You made reference to the 15 tribes of England, and Tudor was one....The Mortimers are Plantagenant so that group is XX friendly, but I suspect the Welsh to be dominated by I1 early Scandanavians who made their presence felt in ENgland long before R1b to to be dominant...Residual I1 leadership in the Kingly Crowd of Welshmen would seem to have an equal shot at success within the TUDOR lineage that traces back quite a long way, back past say Rhys ap Tudor or TEWDDER as earlier welsh people spelled it....My recollection is that group goes back to the Hen's and My mother said the Rice's directly back to that line....fyi. Since Plantagenant Richard III was the Arch-enemy of the Rival Lancaster do we have DNA from other older pre 1066 Welsch leaders such as Howell DDa?

Private User
7/24/2013 at 4:01 PM

I think Prince William looks just like his grandfather Prince Philip , who is of German background., I beleive> Native Americans can look very diferent depending on which tribe they are from. Southwestern Indians , such as the Navajo and Hopi are usually smaller , not always, and very dark but the Algonquin s, which cover a large group of various tribes are more apt to be taller and not as dark. they would include many tribes in new England the midwest and out on the plains. don't forget the Cheyenne and Sioux were orginally in the midwest and got pushed out into the plains.South American , central American and mexican Indians , even tho called Hispanic, but really Indians or Native peoples , whichever you perfer, are more like USA Southwestern Indians. Canadians can include Iraquois and Algonquin tribes.Natibe people can look like many groups of people.My geat Grandmother was 6 feet tall, very lean , high cheekbones dark eyes , which continued down through the family. My other great grandmother also dark but not tall ended up with two dark haired children and two blonds. Husband was a blond. Yet Great grand mothers were part Indian.

7/24/2013 at 6:35 PM

Dale, we need to be careful of terminology here.

R1b did not supersede I1. Both groups still exist and have millions of members. R1b is the most common group in Wales (about 89%). I1 far less common (about 8%). The rest are miscellaneous groups like E1b and G2a. According to some maps I1 in Wales is concentrated along the coast. There was an old idea that this meant I1 was introduced by Viking invaders. Some people still believe that, but some think I1 in Wales is much older.

The percentages in England are much different than Wales. In England, R1b is only about 69%, and there is a much higher number of I1. Perhaps a residual effect of the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

So, what about the Welsh nobility? The native nobility all claimed to be branches of the same extended family, descended from Coel Hen (Old King Cole), either through Rhodri Mawr or Cunedda. (Rhodri Mawr was the grandfather of the Hywell Dda you mentioned.) If Coel Hen was a real person he seems to have lived in the early 5th century, in Roman Britain.

BTW, I think this is what you mean by being descended from "the Hens". Hen is just a Welsh word that means "old". It is not a family or dynasty name.

This is why the Welsh nobility is traditionally grouped into 15 Noble Tribes. All except one claimed to be descended from Coel Hen. These are not tribes in the modern sense, people living in a particular region and following a chief. They are tribes in the older sense of "clans". They were sprawling, extended families ruling as nobility in their little areas.

The Tudors. like the others, claimed an unbroken male-line descent from Coel Hen (Old King Cole). The group the Tudors belonged to is called the 8th Noble Tribe, the descendants of Marchudd ap Cynan, who lived in the 9th century.

So, what was the haplogroup of the Tudors? The odds point to R1b, but no one knows. R1b is probably older in Wales than I1; R1b was probably more common in Wales in ancient times than it is now; the Tudors probably are genuinely a native Welsh family; etc.

However, we don't have any DNA from bodies of these old Welsh kings and princes. All we have are people living today who claim to be descended from them.

The people who've tried to prove a haplogroup by triangulation keep running into problems. All those old families who supposedly have a common ancestor keep turning out to belong to very different genetic lines. Usually R1b, but very different subgroups of R1b. Sometimes I1, but different subgroups of I1, including one I1 subgroup that is almost unique to Wales.

Probably, some of their pedigrees were fake from the beginning, and in other cases there have been adoptions (or whatever).

7/24/2013 at 7:15 PM

Illuminating, Justin as usual...My Mother was not born a Rice she married into the Family, thus the Story came down through her father in law, ANDREW RICE the spitting image of Henry TUDOR VII fyi, and thus I can only repeat what she said to me....not knowing that HEN = OLD....It was conveyed that the HENS were a family....so I will adjust my mode of thinking accordingly....You may have more than you know in John Rice 1624 as I1. DCR 1948

7/24/2013 at 9:15 PM

Found Theresa Renee Elena (Tossas) Walker's comment re common ancestors interesting. My husband's 7th great grandfather and my 8th great grandfather is the same man - Joseph Baldwin Sr. Makes one wonder about her comments of familiarity.

7/24/2013 at 9:41 PM

I wonder how many of us married distant relatives without knowing it. My ex-wife and I have several ancestors in common, so do my parents, so do my father and step-father. Almost inevitable, I think, when we all have so many ancestors among the pioneers of New England.

In fact, I read once (can't find it now) that because of the Great Migration Americans whose ancestors were here before 1850 are the largest, most closely related group of people in the world -- no more than 13th cousins from everyone else.

Private User
7/24/2013 at 10:00 PM

I'm running 9th - 13th cousins through my New England ancestry & 15-18th through my Virginia arrivers.

7/24/2013 at 10:04 PM

I'm getting 6th - 13 cousins on both Virginia and New England. To me, 15th to 18th are nearly always Europeans.

Private User
7/24/2013 at 10:09 PM

You've been at this longer! A lot of my paths go through England, which makes me suspicious. :). I believe Geni needs more 18th century tree development.

7/24/2013 at 10:32 PM

Oh definitely. That's where the real action is.

7/25/2013 at 9:40 AM

That's part of the reason I am calling for Mt. DNA comparrison of John Rice 1624 of Dedham comparrison to Tamzin, Thomasine Frost Rice....If they connect then we can at least remove one unknown from the Geni file in 17 century....agreed? DCR 1948

7/25/2013 at 10:08 AM

Do you have a testing strategy? That is, do you know someone who is a female-line line descendant of one of John Rice's sisters and someone else who is a female-line descendant of Tamzin? (I assume they're not mother / son.) You'll need both of those to figure out whether there is an mtDNA match.

Private User
7/25/2013 at 4:06 PM

So basicly if you whole imidiate family with the except of one child is dead.The whole dna thing is dead in the water.

7/25/2013 at 4:31 PM

William the Conqueror, King of England is your 25th great grandfather.

7/25/2013 at 4:55 PM

Judi, you don't necessarily need immediate family in order to test.

For example, I have a block with one of my 2nd great grandmothers. She was apparently adopted, although I can't be sure. Tradition says she was Indian. She had a sister who married a Lakota man. I suspected she was Black.

So I started searching for female line descendants. It took me a couple of years, but I finally found one, a 3rd cousin whose grandmother and mine were cousins. She agreed to me tested.

It turns out that our 2nd great grandmother was Indian (India) not Indian (Native American) -- at least in the distant female line, not necessarily the past few hundred years . We're still trying to puzzle it out, but we're much closer to answer than we've ever been before.

It turned out out that I share some of my Ashkenazi genes with this same cousin. So, they're from a totally different line than I thought they would be.

And, to make the story even better, this cousin and I have become good chums, on Geni, on Facebook, and in real life.

There are plenty of opportunities to use DNA for genealogy, even if you're not the one being tested.

7/25/2013 at 5:04 PM

Justin: I thought Males got Mt. DNA from their mother on X? why not see what Tamzin's is and compare to John, 1624 that's already done someone just needs to look....Right?

7/25/2013 at 5:17 PM

And supersede meaning one becomes dominant in number in that area, not as is whiped out.! The language Im using Is just palin folk talk because Im not speaking with the precision of an insider, as of yet! LOL. My observation of human nature would say that person's arriving and marrying into the I1 people present in the nobility would claim their marriage to the daughter of an I1 Noble is a connection...but we know for a fact it's not the Haplogroup that the Male like descends from Cole Hen or else we'd have no rareity in S. Wales where Tudor men and descendants were present at CAREW CASTLE, TENBY, Pembrokshire, and that rareity works in the favor of John Rice 1624 in my book....The pretenders want to claim they are blood born, but their wives are the connection, not the man, so lots R1b's may be using a female lineage as the basis of their belief....not the male lineage. Right?

7/25/2013 at 5:55 PM

Dale, Two separate messages to respond to two very different questions.

Males get mtDNA, but not on the x chromosome. Bear with me. This might be one of the most difficult DNA topics to explain.

Humans actually have two different kinds of DNA. There is the kind of DNA we've been talking about here. Everyone gets 46 chromosomes, half from each parent. These chromosomes drive the growth, appearance, and health of the human person.

Then, there is the other kind, called mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA). The mitochondria are like the organs of the cell. Each cell has its personal copy of the 46 chromosomes, but it also has these mitochondria, and the mitochondria have their own DNA separate from the DNA in the cell. The mtDNA in the mitochondria has nothing to do with the regular DNA in the nucleus of the cell.

Everyone gets their mother's mitochondrial DNA. Period. No contribution from the father. No combining. The DNA in the mitochondria just keeps going down through the generations with an occasional mutation.

So, yDNA and mtDNA are two very different things, but they serve complementary purposes. A yDNA test will tell you about your paternal line and an mtDNA test will tell you about your maternal line.

7/25/2013 at 6:01 PM

Dale, if I read your second message right, then yes. Absolutely. I think you are right that many families who claim to descend from that root of Welsh noble families are probably descendants on the female line.

Probably there are places in the pedigree where they've swapped a son-in-law and made him look like a son so it would appear to be the same family.

I think we see this in the genetic results. We might have suspected before, but now we have proof that they aren't all male-line descendants.

Now, the trick is to figure out which ones are and which ones aren't. It's turning out to be much harder than anyone ever thought it would.

7/25/2013 at 6:06 PM

what is the very best test to get done
on say, your mother (if she is your oldest living relative)
or, yourself ? what do people recommend ?

7/25/2013 at 6:06 PM

Okay, Thanks for the refresher on MT. DNA....so lets please have someone look at the John Rice 1624 Mt.DNA and compare it to Tamzine Frost/Rice....My question and observation statnds....my Aural Histiory says she is his mother, and he ended up only a few miles WEST of her meaning a 14 year old got to AMERICA on his own with Perrott's help in my book, But someone please just check the Mt DNA for both...Im betting she's his MOMMA! LOL DCR 1948

7/25/2013 at 6:11 PM

Justiin you chime in here: the Tests are coming down in Price, I have located one that does Male Y to 31 markers and a Female Mt. DNA test for $147.00 on MY Family DNA....The female part may not be as complete as the Y but it's a good start to see if worth pursuing further with more complete testing at higher costs...but That's a tight fisted Nebraska Farmer's son talin'! LOL DCR 1948

7/25/2013 at 6:18 PM

Susan, the answer to your question is very, very complicated. I'll try to answer later tonight. Dale is right though -- the price of tests is dropping dramatically, and it will just keep going down.

7/25/2013 at 6:18 PM

William the Conqueror, King of England - is my 25th great grandfather

7/25/2013 at 6:20 PM

when i see private ones, like this one King William the Conqueror - something is normally fishy !!!

7/25/2013 at 6:27 PM

Dale, the connection between Tamzin and John Rice is a problem for testing. I don't know enough about the family to know if there's a way to work around it.

This is the problem -- in order to compare, you need mtDNA for both of them. It has to be mtDNA, not something with the x chromosome.

For Tamzin, you need to find someone, male or female, who is descended in the direct female line from Tamzin. If she didn't have any daughters, or you aren't sure if someone was her daughter, or if her daughters' lines have all died out, then you would look for a direct female-line descendant of one of her sisters (a sister with the same mother).

But, John was a man. He had his mother's mtDNA but he didn't pass it on to his children. His children got their mother's mtDNA. So, you don't have a way to test for him.

If John had a sister, and if you're weren't sure whether she was a daughter of Tamzin, you could find one female line descendant from her, and one from another sister, and compare them. But that still wouldn't get you any closer to finding John's mtDNA, unless for some reason there was no doubt at all that a particular woman was his sister.

7/25/2013 at 7:30 PM

Susan Lynne Schwenger, after watching another similar situation unfold in another discussion I think the private King William profile offers little of genuine assistance. This is second hand information from observation, but it seems the only way to keep a profile of this length of time private is to leave off the birth and death dates. If they don't know those, they don't know enough to be useful anyway. Geni will automatically fill in a date range from associated profiles, and it goes public again. Fishy maybe, but it's a minnow.

Private User
7/25/2013 at 9:32 PM

Susan Lynne Schwenger "King Rufus", the living manager / son of "King William the Conqueror" is what Geni calls a "claimed historical profile" and has been reported as such (profile view, actions menu, report, (drop down) "claimed historic profile").

I guess some people find it "cute" to set up these private trees, for free, on Geni.

Just an annoyance for Customer Service to take care of. The Master Profile of course represents the "best version of a historic figure we know"
& it's work enough getting those sourced and accurate - all invited to contribute.

7/25/2013 at 10:54 PM

@william the conqueror is my 30th great grandfather.

Showing 31-60 of 255 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion