Weird article and demography

Forums: Science And Math
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I just saw this article :

http://www.livescience.com/history/ap_royal_roots.html

... and this affirmation caught my attention :

Quote:

Some experts estimate that 80 percent of England's present population descends from Edward III.

If this is true, then, the descendants of the whole population of Edward III era (excluding the king himself) would represent only 20 percents of England's present population, right??? How could it be possible??

Generallly, I suck at maths but in my books, 80% + 20% makes 100%.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 702 • Replies: 7

No top replies

Re: Weird article and demography

Sleidia wrote:

If this is true, then, the descendants of the whole population of Edward III era (excluding the king himself) would represent only 20 percents of England's present population, right???

Not necessarily. For one thing, some members of the English population in the 1300s were also descendents of Edward III (he had an extensive family through his own children and grandchildren) so the population doesn't really divide into "the king himself + everyone else." More generally, if 80% of the present population descends from Edward III, it does not follow that the other 20% must descend from Edward III's non-related contemporaries. England's present population also descends from people who came to England after 1300, such as immigrants, transplants and any number of others.

0 Replies

Quote:

Not necessarily. For one thing, some members of the English population in the 1300s were also descendents of Edward III (he had an extensive family through his own children and grandchildren) so the population doesn't really divide into "the king himself + everyone else."

Sorry, but I don't get it Sad

Quote:

More generally, if 80% of the present population descends from Edward III, it does not follow that the other 20% must descend from Edward III's non-related contemporaries. England's present population also descends from people who came to England after 1300, such as immigrants, transplants and any number of others.

When they say "80 percent of England's present population descends from Edward III", the fact that they use the wider term "present population" means that they don't make a difference between immigrants and non immigrants.

Maybe someone can confirm it but I have the strong feeling that the article is silly at best.

0 Replies

If a 100% percent of you and your siblings are decendants of your grandfather on your father's side, it doesn't mean 0% of your siblings are decendants of your grandfather on your mother's side of the family.

0 Replies

Krekel wrote:

If a 100% percent of you and your siblings are decendants of your grandfather on your father's side, it doesn't mean 0% of your siblings are decendants of your grandfather on your mother's side of the family.

When they say that "80 percent of England's present population descends from Edward III", they don't take what you just wrote into account.

They just say that 80% of the English population have Edward III in their family.

I don't get why you guys try to interpret an article in your own way to make it sound more logical than it is Sad

Or maybe I'm too dumb and too stubborn as well.

0 Replies

Sleidia wrote:

Sorry, but I don't get it

No worries; I'll try to explain it a little less cryptically. You wrote:

Quote:

"Some experts estimate that 80 percent of England's present population descends from Edward III... If this is true, then, the descendants of the whole population of Edward III era (excluding the king himself) would represent only 20 percents of England's present population, right???"

which implies that "the king himself" was the only person who could produce descendants of Edward III, and that, in Edward III's time, a person who was born to someone other than Edward III would produce non-descendants. This is what I meant by "dividing the population into Edward III + everyone else." However, it doesn't work that way. During Edward III's time, it was possible to be born to someone other than the king and still be a descendent of the king. One could, for example, be born to one of the king's children, as many people were. Therefore, it is misleading to say "the king himself"; more accurately, it would be "the king himself and the descendents of his children," which was a considerable number.

Quote:

When they say "80 percent of England's present population descends from Edward III", the fact that they use the wider term "present population" means that they don't make a difference between immigrants and non immigrants.

But it doesn't mean that the remaining 20% of the present population is descended from the population of Edward III's time. You're assuming that 100% of the present population is descended from the population during Edward III's time. The statement you quoted does not imply that; it makes no claim to where the remaining 20% of the present population comes from.

Quote:

Maybe someone can confirm it but I have the strong feeling that the article is silly at best.

This article isn't the first to make this suggestion. It is widely known that Edward III's descendants come out to some ridiculously high number. Here's one website that tries to list Edward III's descendants.

0 Replies

Quote:

When they say that "80 percent of England's present population descends from Edward III", they don't take what you just wrote into account.

Yes they do. They just don't mention it because they assume everyone already knows what I've just said.

Quote:

They just say that 80% of the English population have Edward III in their family.

And they're probably correct.

Quote:

I don't get why you guys try to interpret an article in your own way to make it sound more logical than it is

We're not, you're just not getting it. Lets say your grandfather on your fathers side is King Edward III, and lets say you and your siblings are the present population of England, and all four of your grandparents are the population of Englands in Edward's era.

-An article is written, it says: a 100% percent of the present population descends from Edward III ...
The article would be right.

-Now you say: how could this be, this would mean the rest of my grandparents don't have any descendants, because overlap doesn't exist in any way ...
You would be wrong.

0 Replies

A better written article on the same subject :

http://www.physorg.com/news71043444.html

Quote:

Furthermore, Olson and his colleagues have found that if you go back a little farther -- about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago -- everybody living today has exactly the same set of ancestors. In other words, every person who was alive at that time is either an ancestor to all 6 billion people living today, or their line died out and they have no remaining descendants.

0 Replies

Weird article and demography

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know