New Most Recent Common Ancestor studied

Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) for Europe lived 1000 years ago.

Studies that I've read that were written more than a decade ago says the MRCA of northern Europeans lived 1000 years ago. This recent study says the MRCA for ALL of Europe.

A MRCA is someone who is an ancestor by at least one bloodline of everyone in a given population group. The MRCA of the entire world may have lived 15000 to 5000 years ago. The MRCA does not necessarily have to have a large family, but it increases the odds spectacularly. A thousand years ago when most people died, someone with large families for the first four generations has a much better chance. There is a good chance it was someone of noble or royal birth, King Edward III had many children and they in turn all had large families at a time when most of the population was dying of the Black Death. As a result, probably over 99% of the sub-country England (England is 90% of the population of the United Kingdom) is descended from him.

The MRCA of Iceland died only about 500 years ago. The population is only 330K, and there has been very little immigration for a thousand years,

Yeah, I like to boast about my royal lineage at times :)

Unfortunately, this means we are all related to Carrot Top?

photo from exposay.com

Quote: Ayecarumba

Unfortunately, this means we are all related to Carrot Top?

Every two people have common ancestors, so they are all related. Usually people don't worry about it if they don't know their common ancestor, or it is a great great grandparent or even more remote.

The British Queen and her husband are:
(1) 2nd cousins one generation removed
(2) 3rd cousins
(4) 4th cousins

Prince Charles is 9th cousin one generation removed from his wife Camilla, but Camilla is a 7th cousin one generation removed from her stepson Prince William (as she was 7th cousins with Princess Diana).

Britain only reached 5 million less than 400 years ago, while France reached 5 million over 2000 years ago, Hence the British are all much more closely related (even though they are the same population today).

Quote: Pacomartin

Britain only reached 5 million less than 400 years ago, while France reached 5 million over 2000 years ago, Hence the British are all much more closely related (even though they are the same population today).

That's okay, I'm sure they each blame their problems on immigrants.

The ending of the movie and the book "The Da Vinci Code" I believe is almost universally known. If not I will put it in a spoiler.


One thing that is seldom mentioned is the statistical impossibility of having a single descendant of a union in antiquity is a so unlikely that it would be a miracle. Even over five generations it is unlikely to have only one living descendant. Once you are over 50 generations or more, you either have no descendants, or your descendants are a significant percentage of the population of the world.

About 10 years ago, there was an ethical debate article on Dr.s running tests for certain family diseases. It boiled down to in 10% of cases of children from married parents, the dad was not the father. We're all related most definitely.
The article was in a Syracuse, NY newspaper from about 10 years ago, but I don't have a link.

Quote: 1nickelmiracle

About 10 years ago, there was an ethical debate article on Dr.s running tests for certain family diseases. It boiled down to in 10% of cases of children from married parents, the dad was not the father...

The word miscegenation was invented in an anonymous propaganda pamphlet entitled Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro published in New York City in December 1863. The pamphlet stated the goal of the Republican Party was the intermarriage of whites and blacks until they were indistinguishably mixed. The pamphlet was a hoax. Remember that the Republican party in the 1860's was the liberal party.

In the late 1950's when genetic research on human beings, researchers discovered the not surprising fact that many "black" people had European blood in at least some small part. Given the prevalence of rape and or prostitution, or some variation of the above it is assumed that a white man would be a distant ancestor of most descendants of slaves.

What was surprising was that a very large percentage of the so called "white" population in America had African ancestors. In the late 1950's when interracial marriage was still illegal in many states the result was eye opening.


In societies that encourage first cousin marriage, your preferred spouse (if you were male) was your mother's brother's daughter. However, your mother's sister's daughter was off limits. Presumably this ancient taboo was to take care of the case where a man may have impregnated both sisters and you might mistakenly marry your half sister.

Quote: 1nickelmiracle

About 10 years ago, there was an ethical debate article on Dr.s running tests for certain family diseases. It boiled down to in 10% of cases of children from married parents, the dad was not the father. We're all related most definitely.
The article was in a Syracuse, NY newspaper from about 10 years ago, but I don't have a link.

I've heard this study before, but it had some flaws... not least the population it was taken from. But there it is common enough that the police have to be careful when taking dna samples for comparison for body identification. The last thing a grieving relative wants to know is that their daughter isn't theirs.

In 2009, 41% of children born in the United States were born to unmarried mothers. That includes 73% of non-Hispanic black children, 53% of Hispanic children and 29% of non-Hispanic white children.

Next to those statistics, the number of children raised by men who mistakenly believe that they are the father must be very tiny. I have known of a child in such a case, and it made me uncomfortable to shake the husband's hand. But, of course, it is not my business to destroy families.

I am not sure the legality of that status. If a man raises a child to the age of 21, and then he dies, can someone dispute the will based on the negative results of a biological test?

In royalty, of course, the issue can be huge. Many people in Britain call for DNA testing of Prince Harry given that Diana's admitted extra-marital lover also had red hair. The presumed father denies any relationship, as he says that Harry was already a toddler when he began sleeping with Diana.

The mother of Edward IV (born 1442) denounced her son's paternity when he married a woman she didn't like. As Edward's daughter, Elizabeth of York (born 1466) is the bedrock on which the legitimacy of all the children of Henry VII is based, and the entire royal lineage to the present day. While the story was widely circulated at the time, and was referenced by Shakespeare, recently a medieval historian found a document that seems to point conclusively that the father of Edward IV was at war for many weeks covering the entire possible time period when the conception could have occurred.



Despite the somewhat fanciful TV documentary that purports that the Britain's True Monarch lives in a tract home in a tiny Australian town in the outback, there are some legal issues.
(1) Henry 7th has parliament declare him monarch by "right of conquest" in 1485 so that he had a legal claim in addition to the legitimacy of his wife
(2) In 1701 parliament passed a law declaring the legal line after William and Mary, and then Queen Anne died (she died in 1714). As William was probably gay he was unable to do his duty anyway and produce an heir. Anne had either 17 or 19 miscarriages and deaths of her young children.

If Harry were not the biological son of Prince Charles, I think he would be legitimate under British law since he was raised as a son by his father. But that legitimacy would not extend to the line of succession, and he would not be able to inherit the throne. There is some question if parliament would remove any official royal duties.