My father's family, the ancestors recorded on genealogy sites, going back in time, are German until 1400, from then on people are noble and German, until 800, when people with French and Roman names begin to appear, until they begin people of Hun origin appear.
Once you get past the 800s, the origins of nobility are mostly mythical. There aren’t any sources really letting you go back that far with certainty. Depending on the region, you’re lucky to get past 1000 or 1100 and only the most notable people have some kind of lineage going further back.
However, the Huns probably had plenty of descendants and I guarantee every single European alive today can somehow trace their lineage back to a Huns somewhere, even real huns (many “Huns” outside of the nobility were Europeans who joined them).
Yes, it showed that I was a descendant of Jesus.
But it also showed Welsh ancestry in 600 or so and israelites before.
I wouldn’t recommend using family search as a source. You’re better off tracing your family with records and then, if there’s anyone notable, use wikitree to get more sources. Cross reference the sources posted there and keep going up. Don’t add people who are uncertain or don’t have sources to prove their parentage.
If you could hypothetically know each and everyone of your ancestors, then yes, you could find a Hun in your family tree somewhere.
For instance, it’s mathematically certain that every British person today is somehow a direct descendant of Edward III (pic related). It’s just the math of it. The population has exploded massively from a very small base. In 1500, the English population was maybe 3 million, now it’s 55 million. Edward III’s wife was Phillippa Avesenes. Her Great Great Grandmother was Elizabeth “the Cuman” Teteroba, the daughter of a Cuman Khan that married King Stephen V of Hungary. Every English person is thus, necessairly, also a descendant of a Cuman from the 1200s and a bunch of cumans that came before.
It hasn’t had an impact on your dna necessarily, but every European is descended from people you would never have imagined.
Do Germans come from African or Arabic, as in the case mentioned?
You will never be a real Hun.
In fact, I would like to be entirely white.
>German
>entirely white
I have bad news anon.
I would like to know, talk about it.
Even Hitler admitted Germans were mixed race but he tried to cope about it by seething about israelites who were even more mixed race.
When?
I don’t see how “inbreeding” defeats my point. Yes, if you go back far enough, you will likely be related to the same people several times over. People are likely related to Charlemagne by several different branches.
3 million don’t become 55 million in the long run without overlap, and that applies to all of Europe.
I think we’re miscommunicating on a few things. First, when I say tracing back, I’m not talking about direct paternal descent. Surname erosion has nothing to do with anything I’m talking about. Second, most people who ill never find Charlemagne in their trees because records are scarce, but it would be nearly impossible for him not to be there, whether known or unknown, because of the math. It can be found practically too. Take any low level noble from the 1500s or 1600s and trace their family tree. If you trace their tree, you will inevitably find Charlemagne. It is inevitable that you are somehow related to at least one low level nobile from that time just based on the numbers.
>0 geneflow
One ancestor 20 generations back will not leave any genetic mark.
it's literally exactly how it works brainlet
First, I’ve quite literally don’t it in my own family line and I’m a total nobody. Second, go trace King Charles III lineage. You can directly follow his ancestry back to Charlemagne via the Stewarts to Tudors to Plantagenets to Normandys to the house of Wessex etc. His lineage can be traced back a dozen ways to Charlemagne, like through Plantagenet and Anjou marriages with the Capets. So you’re just wrong: there are descendants of Charlemagne and other very important medieval figures alive today, even if you won’t make an allowance for normal people to also be descendants. You’re just dismissing it outright based on some assumption that whole lines are periodically wiped out with no sons or daughters, by what force I don’t know. And I don’t mean to get all autistic, but even the existence of haplogroups, which show incredibly long continuities in lineage, prove you wrong.
The biggest assumption in this conversation is you saying that actually just 10 or so peasants were the healthy and prosperous ones leading to 3 million and then 55 million people (in keeping with the example of England) and that nobles just never had kids.
I don't understand what you're talking about, every noble has children and because they were noble the chances of reaching adulthood were great.
>Yes, nobles.
No, don’t move the goalpost. You said there were none and you’re just wrong, completely. And there were many nobles who had kids who’s offspring eventually receded into not being noble.
Anyway, I think there’s one thing we can agree on and it’s that we’re having a big miscommunication. How about this: link me some material referencing or debunking the positions I’m defending and I’ll read it.
Exactly, the chances of nobles having kids is greater. If 10 people were to spawn millions which then intertangled with the kids of another 10 who spawned millions, it’d be nobles, including lesser ones.
What makes someone stop being noble?
When 19th century is over and nobody cares.
Letting private (foreign) interests control your family's and people's money supply, their means to their own health and wealth. Not defending this with your life or death is ignoble.
Being an undesirable child, and marrying someone of lower class. Repeat until less and less noble, and then eventually until working class. Most people have noble ancestry considering the size of the noble class, as well as the fact that you have thousands upon thousands ancestors in this time period, and the amount nearly doubles with each generation.
You literally said it here
>And his line is extinct and he has no descendants.
You’re not arguing in good faith and I’m going to ignore the rest of what you say unless it’s a link to an article debunking the position I’m defending or something.
It’s clearly in reference to an ongoing conversation about Charlemagne and being descended from him. And if your response was meant to be about my references to Elizabeth Teteroba, then it was an absurdly moronic thing to say because there are literally living descendants of her as well: Charles III.
You’re such a dumb homosexual. You can’t even use words right. Follow Charles III’s tree back to Edward III and his wife Phillipa. Follow her tree back to Steven V of Hungary. Also who do you think the Cumans were?
You’re a waste of time. Provide some material other than your own asspulls that refute my positions or frick off