GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1116654038


From: "Gary Rea" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] William the Conqueror
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 00:40:38 -0500
References: <004701c55d90$ea716160$e06560cb@Marsh>


Yes, he does. Eyestein "The Noisey" Glumra, Jarl of the Uplanders was the
father of Ragnvald Eyestein "The Wise" of Mor who, in turn, was the father
of Robert (Rollo) Ragnvaldsson of Norway, First Duke of Normandy. Thus,
William the Conqueror was Eyestein's 5th great-grandson.

Gary





----- Original Message -----
From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] William the Conqueror


> Hi David,
>
> I understood your Sinclair descended from Eystein, aka "The Noisy", Jarl
> of
> Glumra. You now say the Sinclair is from the same Y-DNA line as William
> the
> Conqueror. I don't believe I have heard it claimed that William's
> ancestor
> Rollo was descended from Eystein. Does Rollo descend from Eystein on the
> direct male line?
>
> Regards,
> John Marsh.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 3:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] William the Conqueror
>
>
>> Ken:
>>
>> You did not mention that there are exceptions to your description below -
> Y-DNA and mtDNA. You are only speaking of autosomal DNA.
>>
>> The Y chromosome of my Shetland Islands Bruce participant appears to have
> come directly, and intact except for a few inconsequential mutations,
> from
> the Royal Bruce of Scotland family. The same can be said for my Stewart
> participant sharing the same Y chromosome as James V of Scotland, and my
> Sinclair participant having the same Y chromosome as William the Conqueror
> (although not a direct lineal descendant of the latter). Curiously all
> are
> R1b. More to the point, all these men inherited the chromosome as a unit
> (the recombining part at the tips being an exception) and so despite the
> large number of generations (e.g., 30) separating them and their ancestors
> of 1000 or so years ago they are in the position of having "bragging
> rights"
> as to having one of their 46 chromosomes that can be traced via genealogy
> and DNA research to a known figure in the early history of Europe.
>>
>> David F.
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------- Original message --------------
>>
>> > Its even worse than your observation of a "finite number of genes".
> Because
>> > of "crossover" in which the matched pairs of chromosomes split and
> exchange
>> > whole segments of themselves with each other (about three parts per
>> > chromosome I have read), we don't inherit genes one by one each
> generation,
>> > but in large hunks. By only the 10th generation back the math suggests
> you
>> > start having ancestors from which you inherited no genetic materials
>> > whatsoever.
>> >
>> > So from about the 10th generation back most of one's ancestors are only
>> > "behavioral ancestors" in that their matings were a causal link which
>> > eventually led to oneself. They leave us no genetic material. That's
>> > why
>> > at about the 10th generation back I get more interested in tribes,
> clans,
>> > and regional populations. Their gene pools become our meaningful deep
>> > genetic ancestral origins further back in time.
>> >
>> > Incidently, I am not discounting the importance of "behavioral
> ancestry".
>> > We are nature-plus-nurture creatures. The family cultural (behavioral)
>> > traditions handed down from generation to generation are as important
>> > to
> us
>> > as the genetic handdowns. And a family line which has believed it
> descends
>> > from Bruce of Scotland could very well have preserved a family culture
> for
>> > centuries which reflects that genealogical origin.
>> >
>> > Ken
>>
>>
>> ==============================
>> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records.
>> New content added every business day. Learn more:
>> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx
>>
>
> ______________________________

This thread: