New study shows Norman kings of England had haplogroup J2

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374951079_The_human_Y-Chromosome_DNA_haplogroup_of_the_Norman_kings_of_England_and_their_families

It has been suggested that Issac Newton may be descended from them

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's interesting but why did you picture Harold Goodwinson in picrel

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were the ones to bring the israelites to England. It checks out.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    SNEED

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We already knew that montgomeries were J2.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I might be a bit skeptical of these claims.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i might be a bit skeptical of the basis of your skepsis

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I want to see more ancient DNA of European kangz. Why don't they test Charlemagne's bones?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >A DNA test of three living members of this family determined the Y-DNA profile of this lineage. The persons tested where prince Axel of Bourbon-Parma, prince Sixtus of Bourbon-Parma and prince João Henrique of Orleans-Braganza. All three share the same profile and belong to the same haplogroup R-Z381

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah but I don't buy their claim of descent from Charlemagne.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Isn’t that the Capetians? They’re not Carolingians in the male line.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is actually no register tying roger of montgomery to ulvungars. It is purely speculative

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its obvious, why would rollo or any of his descendants be J2.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He was a israelite

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe, maybe not. His mother was supposedly a relative of gunnor, who was registered as danish. Idk however why would this study draw any relation between ulvungars and montgomeries. As the latter aren't present in genealogical records that tie them paternally to the former

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's not the weirdest part. The assumption drawn that there is a mythological dynasty connecting them and rollo is the weirdest part to not say literally antiscientific. Thought the study was to be published in a indian magazine so go figure

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Mind that one of the guys involved on the study is a conspirancy writer that makes shit about dynasties descended from dyonisius and jesus.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ah makes sense. Found a more serious and coherent study on the matter. Places it as p312

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            P312 is 'Celtic' so it would be weird too.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            not that much. P312 can be found anywhere in central europe since the late neolithic, inclduing the netherlands, northern germany and denmark.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Came to say this. They quite literally assumed he was a grandnephew to the wife of one of rollo descendants and drew from that he was a ulvungar

      Extremely farfetched assumption

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >No near-contemporary source gives Roger's parentage. The younger Roger de Montgomery, actually son of this Roger, was instead said by chronicler Robert of Torigni to have been born to a Hugh de Montgomery by Josseline, niece of Gunnor, Duchess of Normandy. One possible interpretation of this clear misstatement is that a generation has been dropped, and that it was the elder Roger who was son of Hugh and Josseline, though others conclude that Josseline's husband was the elder Roger, the assignment of the name Hugh to her husband being the error. Though Robert de Torigni calls Josceline daughter of Wevia, sister of Gunnor, a letter from the reign of Henry I states she was daughter of another sister, Senfria.[1][2]

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is neither new, nor a study. More of a bad joke.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >study
    Is not a study. Is a conference, among the three authors of the study you can see a conspirancy theorist that makes books about god-kings descended from jesus
    >New
    We already knew montgomery family ydna was J since 2015, the montgomery Ydna project from Ftdna figured out.
    >kings
    Roger de montgomery wasn't related to Rollo, his parentage is unknown and it was recorded in any contemporary source. Some mentions suggesting his mother being related to Gunnor is the only thing to go on.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    J is from the Steppe thr the Caucus like any IndoEuro haplo.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >User
    >did the paternal line of charlemagne survive to the modern day

    >ChatGPT
    >The direct paternal line of Charlemagne, who lived in the 8th and 9th centuries, did not survive to the modern day. Charlemagne had several legitimate and illegitimate children, but over the centuries, the male-line descendants of Charlemagne eventually died out.

    >However, Charlemagne has many descendants through various branches of his family tree, and some European royal and noble families claim descent from him through maternal lines. While the direct male-line descendants may not exist today, Charlemagne's legacy can still be traced through the interweaving connections of European aristocracy and nobility. Keep in mind that the accuracy of genealogical claims can vary, and it's essential to approach such assertions with scrutiny.

    Is this true?

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Med bvlls CANT stop winning

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >this study, the test results of DNA samples obtained from living direct male descendants of the House of Montgomery

    >The original family rose to prominence during the 10th century in the new Duchy of Normandy. Roger de Montgomery, seigneur of Montgomery, was a relative, probably a grandnephew, of the Duchess Gunnor, wife of Duke Richard I of Normandy, member of the House of Normandy

    >No near-contemporary source gives Roger's parentage. The younger Roger de Montgomery, actually son of this Roger, was instead said by chronicler Robert of Torigni to have been born to a Hugh de Montgomery by Josseline, niece of Gunnor, Duchess of Normandy. One possible interpretation of this clear misstatement is that a generation has been dropped, and that it was the elder Roger who was son of Hugh and Josseline, though others conclude that Josseline's husband was the elder Roger, the assignment of the name Hugh to her husband being the error. Though Robert de Torigni calls Josceline daughter of Wevia, sister of Gunnor, a letter from the reign of Henry I states she was daughter of another sister, Senfria.[1][2]

    ?????? not even a study, let alone peer reviewed. it a literal conference summary in which a guy that makes fantasy literature took part

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      how is this guy even paternally related to william?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that's the point, he is not

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          so what is even the point of this whole study?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the guy involved (hugh montgomery) made like 3 books claiming vikings were a conspirancy started by the descendants of jesuschrist and the davidic line to counter the hegemony of roman christianity

            no im not kidding.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Predictable, and lame, israelitery

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      oh wait what lol, did he used FTdna project on montgomeries to support his "study"? lol

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yes lmao
        is literally schizo tier shitpost

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          how was it even allowed to be published?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            he paid for it to be published in a small journal of PHYSICS, not even genetics, it wasn''t either peer reviewed because it's a physics journal

            its literally this guy montgomery jerking off himself saying he is descended from semitic kings

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            oh god, he's not even a historian, it's a fricking lawyer

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Vgh mon ancêtre 🙂

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    not really. Newton paternal line traces back to Iestyn ap Llawrodd Dyfed to Llawrodd Dyfed ap Seisyll back into the 900s or so

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lol
    Lmao even

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *