"Who Do You Think You Are" Series 13, Episode #1: Danny Dyer

[sallyyorks]

Just to look at it from a different angle, if you trace back about 20 generations you would have around a million direct ancestors, more or less according to the degree of intermarrying of cousins, etc. That would have been something like a quarter of the entire population. (rough estimates)

People usually married within their own class and often to their "cousins".
As you go back your tree grows and gets to a wide point, but then it starts to narrow back in again. This is due to Pedigree Collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse

[andrewalston]

Historians have traced 245 great great grandchildren of Edward. There were an average of 3 surviving descendants of each line per generation. They were more wealthy than average, so not too many worries about starvation...

The chap on More or Less worked out that by the late 1500s, there would be about 20,000 descendants, so one in every 200 people in England was a descendant of Edward III.

Each of us in the present day would have around 15,000 ancestors who were alive in the late 1500s. That gives odds of about 75-1 on that we are descended from Edward.

[coombs]

I have some landowner ancestors whose children went from yeomen to general labourers. Probably not making enough money so ended up sliding down the social scale.

King Edward III was 22 generations ago and we have about 8 million 22 times great grandparents although we probably are inbred that far back which cuts down the number but even so, his descendants dispersed across the UK and the number multiplied and multiplied into hundreds of thousands of people a few hundred years down the line. So many of us (whether proven or not) will have King Edward III as a direct ancestor.

[KGarrad]

Interesting article here:
https://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/EdwardIIIDescent.php

Which concludes:
Conclusion: there is an extremely high probabilty that a modern English person with predominantly English ancestry descends from Edward III, at a very minimum over 99%, and more likely very close to 100%. The number of descendants of Edward III must therefore include nearly all of the population of England, and probably much of the populations of the rest of the UK and Eire, as well as many millions in the USA, former British colonies and Europe, so 100 million seems a conservative estimate. Documenting one's own descent from Edward III is, however, another matter!

[ThrelfallYorky]

I've just managed to catch up on this first programme, recorded it as I knew I couldn't watch it at the time
Firstly, I'd never even heard of Danny Dyer, but just saw a sort of "cheekie chappie", who seemed very full of himself. The Intro informed me he was linked with "Eastenders" - which I also never have seen.
He seemed to be very bouncy, and obviously had some interest - "Family stories" of French ancestry etc, so was potentially an interested and interesting choice.
As others have mentioned, he didn't really seem to grasp some points, and the programme did bop about a lot. Relationships that were indirect seemed to be adopted as direct lines, and at times one cringed a little.... I'm not sure, as one other said, that D.D. was "having a laugh" at WDYTYA?, but felt at times WDYTYA? might have been having a chuckle at D.D.'s expense!
-But I'm very glad to see the movement back along generations, instead of focussing on someone about grandparent level who should have had a fairly well-known story to the subject, and really glad to see WDYTYA? back on our screens.
Interesting article on ancestry and possibilities of tree collapse, well worth reading.
(I'm pretty sure that my "mob" over the centuries will have differed little from the more recent generations I know about fairly well.... and I'm certain as anyone can be that there's no royal or even noble blood anywhere in my ancestry. Farmers, occasionally described as Yeomen, husbandmen, weavers, millers, innkeepers, brewers, craftsmen, joiners, carpenters, shipwrights, small tradesmen, all those sorts of things ...... nope, can't see a prince charming popping round for a "bit of rough" with the carpenter's daughter, somehow.)

[clairec666]

It is possible, firstly because of illigitimate births.  Secondly you have to consider how many generations back from today's generation and the laws of primagenature.  so it's a gradual process rather than a large number of titled people marrying an ag lab.  Say 20 generations back an aristocrat has 4 sons.  All his sons will benefit from a good education etc from their upbringinging but only the oldest son would inherit the title, estate (means to continue to prosper).  The younger sons would likely have money and their education but have a slightly less prosperous start in adult life potentially ending up well off but not as well off as their oldest sibling.  This pattern would continue with the youngest son of the youngest son and so on.  With each generation there is a high chance they would become less prosperous and less attractive as a marriage proposition to the aristocracy.  It became common for the youngest son of middle ranking noblemen to enter the ministery which would increase the chances of them marrying one of the middle rather than the upper classes the continue the pattern on down the generations.  Then add in those who ended up stripped of their estates, for example in the Civil war or lost their money to gambling debts it becomes more and more likely that the so many x grt grandson or daughter of a high ranking noble man marries a miner, ag lab or so on.

That's a good way of explaining it. And the Danny Dyer episode was a good example - if I remember rightly, nobody suddenly lost their wealth. Another way of looking at it - we have millions of ancestors from the time of Edward III, not all of them are nobility, it only takes one. Chances are, Edward III is our ancestor on more than one line, but proving it is a different matter.

Just for the record, I've not found a link from my family to royalty either, but given my very English ancestry, I'm sure there must be a connection... just haven't found it yet!

[StevieSteve]

The chap on More or Less worked out that by the late 1500s, there would be about 20,000 descendants, so one in every 200 people in England was a descendant of Edward III.

Each of us in the present day would have around 15,000 ancestors who were alive in the late 1500s. That gives odds of about 75-1 on that we are descended from Edward.

I'm going to guess that that calculation will be based on an assumption that anyone of the 1500 population is equally likely to be our ancestor.

What Claire, I think it was, is saying is that assumption is false because the subsets of 1500 nobles and non-nobles produce 3 distinct sets of 2016 population I.e. full noble, full common and hybrid noble-common and that the full common subset will far outweigh the other two

[Skoosh]

What was "English" about Edward III? answers on a very small postcard please! 

Skoosh.

[ThrelfallYorky]

Good one .... or you could write it on the rear of the stamp?