Cameras have been in use for a long time. The earliest camera obscura were frequently used by artists to trace figures onto canvas. The first partially successful camera that could produce a replicable image was made in 1816. Therefore, a photograph from 1851 is not out of the realm of possibility.
I would define direct descendant as parent to child, parent to child, parent to child etc. What they fail to say is that there are thousands of descendants.
So what would the alternative, an indirect descendant, be then? The point SGA is making is that there is only one way to be descended from someone and that is to be descended from them (i.e. parent to child at each step as you say), so there is no special catgeory of 'direct' descendants as distinct from some other category of descendants.
@@gaynor1721 That's entirely true. If someone says a family 'can be traced back to', no one can argue with that. But generally they say 'dates back to' or 'dates from', which is nonsense.
I would definitely agree with the fact that the true value in genealogy, is in the proving it. I know form experience, that if it's done properly & accurately, it's an extremely challenging & costly past-time to take up. Certainly not for the faint hearted! With regards to costs, I have already bitten a large chunk out of £10k. Obtaining, Civil & Parish Records, Wills, Land Deeds,, Marriage Settlements, Letters, Court Records, Images, Monument Inscriptions, Books, Ancestry Subscriptions, DNA tests, Graphic Design, Calligraphy, Ancestry Subscriptions, Professional Translations, Professional Genealogical checks. Oh & be warned, if you have any previous interest in history, & you do identify anyone of note, it could end becoming extremely addictive.
i understand the statistical basis of everyone being descended from kings, but how does it happen in human terms? is it through the king's mistresses? how and when do the king's descendants actually spread their genes to then lower social classes?
In the absence of pedigree/ titled class, or royal lineage, one should not forfeit the possibility of deportment and the likelihood of establishing a good name for oneself based on their own merit.
Louis IX- Saint Louis IX was a French king during the Third Crusade( I don't remember.) So, Saint Louis during his crusade with his army went and fought in the Holy Land and while there he found the Crown of Thorns of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Please correct me anyone if I am wrong?)
'Who Do You Think You Are' is really just for entertainment it's not really serious genealogy. And in that light it can be entertaining, but they always want to connect with royalty or someone famous. Yet often the 'ordinary' peoples lives are far more interesting.
I understand that in principle every English person is likely to be descended from 14th century royalty. But do these calculations take into account localised inbreeding? Most peasants probably married somebody from their local area.
Ha!!! That is the most accomplished, professional rant put to a RUclips video I’ve ever watched. Loved it!
Your analysis & presentation are formidable & beguiling.
Cameras have been in use for a long time. The earliest camera obscura were frequently used by artists to trace figures onto canvas. The first partially successful camera that could produce a replicable image was made in 1816. Therefore, a photograph from 1851 is not out of the realm of possibility.
Very Interesting..Thanks for Sharing..
I would define direct descendant as parent to child, parent to child, parent to child etc. What they fail to say is that there are thousands of descendants.
So what would the alternative, an indirect descendant, be then? The point SGA is making is that there is only one way to be descended from someone and that is to be descended from them (i.e. parent to child at each step as you say), so there is no special catgeory of 'direct' descendants as distinct from some other category of descendants.
Really enjoyed this! Looking forward to the next episodes of SGA!
I also spit blood when someone says that a family 'dates back to'; all families date back equally far, of course.
But 'pants'?!
However, most families can't be traced back as far as the 15th century, for example!
@@gaynor1721 That's entirely true. If someone says a family 'can be traced back to', no one can argue with that. But generally they say 'dates back to' or 'dates from', which is nonsense.
Yes a well-aimed, well-timed & forensic take-down
I would definitely agree with the fact that the true value in genealogy, is in the proving it. I know form experience, that if it's done properly & accurately, it's an extremely challenging & costly past-time to take up. Certainly not for the faint hearted! With regards to costs, I have already bitten a large chunk out of £10k. Obtaining, Civil & Parish Records, Wills, Land Deeds,, Marriage Settlements, Letters, Court Records, Images, Monument Inscriptions, Books, Ancestry Subscriptions, DNA tests, Graphic Design, Calligraphy, Ancestry Subscriptions, Professional Translations, Professional Genealogical checks.
Oh & be warned, if you have any previous interest in history, & you do identify anyone of note, it could end becoming extremely addictive.
Thanks, I had no idea who Danny Dyer was after seeing some of those episodes on U tube
Yes he 'rose without trace'. RUclips can have that effect!😉
i understand the statistical basis of everyone being descended from kings, but how does it happen in human terms?
is it through the king's mistresses? how and when do the king's descendants actually spread their genes to then lower social classes?
dont think you understand working class
In the absence of pedigree/ titled class, or royal lineage, one should not forfeit the possibility of deportment and the likelihood of establishing a good name for oneself based on their own merit.
Short answer. Yes he is.
Louis IX- Saint Louis IX was a French king during the Third Crusade( I don't remember.) So, Saint Louis during his crusade with his army went and fought in the Holy Land and while there he found the Crown of Thorns of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Please correct me anyone if I am wrong?)
I watched the episode when he got wacked over the head by Dr. Tobias Capwell
'Who Do You Think You Are' is really just for entertainment it's not really serious genealogy. And in that light it can be entertaining, but they always want to connect with royalty or someone famous. Yet often the 'ordinary' peoples lives are far more interesting.
Exogeny; endogeny
I understand that in principle every English person is likely to be descended from 14th century royalty. But do these calculations take into account localised inbreeding? Most peasants probably married somebody from their local area.