Talk:List of United States Presidents by genealogical relationship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Removed comment from article.
Comment : I don't know if this is clear for every american or english native, but could one give explanations about expressions such as "Sixth cousin twice removed" ? (could be a link to a genealogical glossary page)
I suppose this could be linked to a consanguinity table. --Doctorcherokee 23:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nice :-( ! Now we are sure that if no knowing person read the discussion page, the question will never get any answer ! Couldn't you think that I considered myself putting it in the discussion first ? I don't know if discussion pages are often used on english wikipeadia, but I fear this is the best way to put this question to oblivion... Well let's see how quick we get an answer now.
Ok, After 10 days, no more reactions. This confirms as I initially thought that a question put here will never be answered because most people do not read the discussion page. So please, do not removed it again unless you replace it by a good answer. Thanks. I understand it may not seem _clean_ to you, but may I remind you that making a wikipedia too clean may kill it.
[edit] cousin explanations
I've recently created this Cousin chart. Does anyone think the explanation of cousins in this article should be replaced with a link to this chart? Along the lines of "For an explanation of the 'cousin' relationships, see Cousin chart". MrItty 18:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] president ancestors
The earlier ancestors of all 43 US Presidents are in book The Jesus Presidents back 1000s of years giving a clearer understanding of who they all are.
The Bush Family gives global ancestors of The Bush Family also back 1000s of years.
- There's no break in documentation so complete that a little Magic Genealogy can't bridge the gap. Authentication through invented genealogies is a fine medieval tradition. All deeply believed in even today by the gullible. --03:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why stub?
Does this article really need to be marked as a stub? I doubt that any additional genealogical relationships among U.S. presidents are out there waiting to be included here, or that any additional explanation of the phenomenon is likely to be particulary interesting. RussBlau 19:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bush and Pierce
I believe George W. Bush is more directly related to Franklin Pierce through his mother (whose maiden name was Pierce) than his father (whose relationship to Pierce is mentioned in this article). Can anyone verify the closer link to Pierce? When I researched it, I got conflicting stories. NoSeptember (talk) 01:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is not correct, while Bush and Pierce are related through the Pierce family, it is a very distant relationship. Time magaizine made a huge mistake in claiming Barbara Pierce Bush was a direct descendant of Franklin Pierce. Pierce had three children, the oldest only living to eleven years old, and thus has no descendatns.
The statements made in the article conflict with one another. This article states that:
Franklin Pierce:fifth cousin four times removed of George Herbert Walker Bush
but then it goes on to say:
George H. W. Bush: seventh cousin three times removed of Theodore Roosevelt and four times removed to Eleanor Roosevelt, seventh cousin four times removed of Abraham Lincoln, eleventh cousin once removed of Gerald Ford. Note that these relationships then also apply to George W. Bush, each an additional generation removed; through his mother Barbara Bush he is also the fifth cousin four times removed of Franklin Pierce.
If Franklin Pierce is the fifth cousin four times removed ot George HW Bush, then George HW Bush should also be the fifth cousin four times removed of Franklin Pierce. Yet, it's not listed for George HW Bush. Instead, it makes that claim for his son, George W Bush. Therefore, there is something wrong with the article, either in the Franklin Pierce section, or in the George HW Bush section. Ed Sanville 14:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Half Cousins?
"James Madison: half first cousin twice removed of George Washington"
What's a half cousin? You can have a half-brother, sure - you share one parent; but you only expect to be related to your cousins via one of your parents and one of theirs, so what on earth is a half cousin (of any degree)? TSP 17:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Since first cousins are the children of siblings, half first cousins would be the children of half siblings. They would have one common grandparent instead of two common grandparents. I agree that the further away from the nuclear family you get, the less relevant the "half" distinction is. NoSeptember- 17:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Relationship removed. That is the wasy half-first cousins are related (children of half-siblings), but Madison and Washington are not even closely related. They are both descendants of King Edward I of England, which would make them sixteenth cousins, which is hardly considered to be related.
[edit] Ashley and Jeremy
Is it really necessary for the line "Ashley loves Jeremy" to appear in the "Significance" section of this article?
[edit] Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?
How far up the totem pole, would you say?
This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?
I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?
There is a general cutoff, isn't there?
Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?
I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?
On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?
UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?
We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?
I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...
IP Address 12:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Truman and Tyler
This page says "Harry S. Truman: great-great-great nephew of John Tyler." I believe the correct relationship is called great-great-grandnephew. Truman's great-grandmother was Ann "Nancy" Drusilla Tyler, but as far as I can tell, she is not related to John Tyler, so neither is Truman.
[edit] mistake ?
I reverted those edits I made earlier. I had thought that they might be vandalism, but this is a subject I don't know enough about to make that determination. I'll just have to leave it to those who are more informed than I am.
BrianGV 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- 131.215.240.167 (talk • contribs) is going to have to provide some sources for his work or it's all going to be reverted as original research. Most of this is non-notable anyway. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)