Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Family History General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-05-13, 00:56
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,716
Default

That must make for interesting conversation over the dinner table Glen.

My 4g grandfather/mother and my 5g grandfather/mother are same people, my 3g grandfather married his niece. A generation or so later, and not my direct line, also had a similar marriage.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-05-13, 01:22
Glen TK's Avatar
Glen TK Glen TK is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 439
Default

It was a bit wierd that's for sure, she contacted me through a long forgotten trying to find post, we worked out that we were half sibs and that we probably passed each other in the street as we lived in the same area and were similiar ages. Then she sent a few pics asking if I recognised her......as I looked at them she looked familiar but were when she was still at school, then one of them was a pic of the two of us together, no point trying to hide who I was but it was a bit of a shock for the pair of us.
__________________
Joseph Goulson 1707-1780
My sledging hammer lies declined, my bellows too have lost their wind
My fire's extinct, my forge decay'd, and in the dust my vice is laid
My coal is spent, my iron's gone
My nails are drove, my work is done
Lord receive my soul
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-05-13, 06:08
marquette's Avatar
marquette marquette is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit View Post
That must make for interesting conversation over the dinner table Glen.

My 4g grandfather/mother and my 5g grandfather/mother are same people, my 3g grandfather married his niece. A generation or so later, and not my direct line, also had a similar marriage.

My trees has been pruned a bit too -

My 6xg grandparents are also my 5xg grandparents. Thier oldest daughter married one man and the youngest daughter (18yrs younger) married another.

One great-great grandchild married a one great-grandchild. Second cousins once removed, but born within a month of each other !


Wow, Glen - that's a bit scary, but also a bit of a shock to both of you.

Di
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-05-13, 11:42
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shona View Post
Shall we send a briefing note to Radio 4's More of Less programme to put them right?
I would love to know what proper statisticians came up with. I used to read the population studies papers: age at marriage, family size etc which were fascinating, but did indicate how very grey the stats get pre decent recording.

Even if all the premises were solid, I do find the 25 year generation decidedly suspect. The actual nobility and royalty may well have been taking teenage brides, but ordinary people wouldn't be marrying until they could afford to. With one of my ancestors having children in his seventies, that really skews the figures.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-05-13, 12:08
Olde Crone Olde Crone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,768
Default

Phoenix

It's a bit like that "average life expectancy" thing that made 40 the age at which you died, pre NHS.

It was probably the biggest surprise overall in my research to discover that many/most of my rural ancestors lived well into their 70s,80s and 90s. If they survived childbirth and accidents, they mostly lived as long as we do today.

OC
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-05-13, 12:16
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

I always liked the "facts" that average life expectancy in Roman times was 24, while average age at marriage was 28. Which of course could both be true.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-05-13, 18:09
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
I always liked the "facts" that average life expectancy in Roman times was 24, while average age at marriage was 28. Which of course could both be true.
But surely that could be true (I'm definitely not saying it is! lol)?

Grossly simplifying the numbers.......If half the population died at birth and the other half lived to be 48 then the average age at death would be 24. But if all those who lived until 48 married at 28 then the average age of marriage would be 28.

*runs out quickly*
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-05-13, 18:28
Olde Crone Olde Crone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,768
Default

Merry

Yes, that's what Phoenix said......both statements can be statistically true.

OC
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-05-13, 18:31
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

lol That's funny I read n't in the middle of her last sentence!! I even thought "I'm surprised Phoenix made that mistake" when it was me all the time!!!

*slopes away again*
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-05-13, 19:12
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In between here and over there
Posts: 331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiterunner View Post
A pretty silly assumption! I read an article debunking this kind of thing recently, I wonder whether I can find it...
I certainly wouldn't be able to find it now, but I remember reading an article which mentioned that almost every line of Prince Charles's ancestry had been traced back 20 generations or so, and compared the theoretical number of ancestors at that point (assuming doubling every generation) with the actual number of distinct individuals. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the number of different ancestors at that generation was MUCH smaller - I think only something like 1/20 of the number with no intermarrying. If we estimate that over the course of 500 years, intermarriages reduce the total number of descendants by a factor of 20 or so, the radio statistician's estimate of 1,000,000 becomes a more believable 50,000.

To illustrate OC's point, there's a certain fairly well known individual who lived a century or so after Richard III and has no living descendants. He had three children and four grandchildren, but only one of the grandchildren lived long enough to marry, and she bore no children so his bloodline ended with her death, only 54 years after his own.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:14.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.