Posted on 10/24/2012 11:36:59 AM PDT by GVnana
How many Commanders-in-Chief can you get in one family tree? When it’s former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s family tree, the answer is six.
According to Ancestry.com, the world’s largest online family history resource, Romney’s family tree connects him to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Pierce, Herbert Hoover, and both George H.W. and George W. Bush.
Romney is connected to Presidents George W. Bush (10th cousins, twice removed), George H. W. Bush (10th cousins, once removed) and Franklin D. Roosevelt (8th cousins, twice removed) through Ann Marbury Hutchinson, a key figure in the development of religious freedom in America and early settler of Rhode Island and New York.
More at link.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.ancestry.com ...
No wonder why politicians are retarded. They are all inbred.
“...(10th cousins, twice removed)...”
I never did understand what this ‘removed’ thingy meant.
The Romney’s did not arrive to the US until the 1830’s.
The family has no one who served in the military after their arrival.
ancestry.com is owned by lds.
It is fun to look as these sites, and see how far back you can trace your family or possible family history, reality is it doesn’t mean anything.
No that was the funniest thing I’ve heard all day. Thanks.
Now that was the funniest thing I’ve heard all day. Thanks.
That is weird.
Ok, here goes.
Your mom has a sister, she is your aunt.
The aunt’s kids are your first cousins, your first cousin’s children are your first cousin once removed, their children would be your first cousin twice removed.
Your first cousins children and your children would be second cousins, so their children would be second cousins once removed.
If you have a large family it is just easier to say cousin, otherwise it just gives you a headache.
I find it interesting that in life, we have more of a monarchy than we think.
Aren’t our leaders in-bred? They know each other very well!
‘Removed’ just means how many generations separate you. For example, if your father has a first cousin, you’re first cousins once removed (i.e., one generation apart). If he in turn has a son, that’s just your second cousin (not ‘removed’) since you’re the same number of generations down from your common ancestor.
Yup. They are not immediate relatives, they are distant members of the family.
Its true because back then America was a small country of a few million souls so its very likely someone knew someone who knew someone.
That’s a lot different today.
Ancestry.com has long since gone public, anyone who wishes can buy stock/ownership in it. Suggest you try looking up wikipedia to get some of your facts straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry.com
Additionally, yes the owners are LDS, but don’t try to confuse that with public ownership.
For example, your mother's first cousin is also your first cousin, but once removed because you're one generation after the relation between your mother and her cousin.
Your children will be first cousins twice removed from your mother's first cousin due to being two generations away from the relation, your grandchildren first cousins thrice removed due to three generations away from the relation, etc.
I said ancestry.com was lds owned and you said ancestry.com was lds owned.
Not sure what you are trying to say here, what facts are wrong as we both said ancestry.com is owned by lds.
Not gonna do it ... with my luck I’m related to Stanley Ann Dunham
TT
You double the number of potential ancestors for each generation you go back. It doesn't take very many generations for the number of your potential ancestors to nearly equal or even surpass the number of inhabitants in a given area at a given time.
This is particularly true if you are talking about pre-1670 or so colonial America. You are dealing with a relatively small pool of potential ancestors. If one of yours made it there before 1670, chances are pretty good that we're distantly related.
The gene pool begins to get mixed big time after 1670 as that is about the time the motherland discovered we were a good place to dump all sorts of undesirable types, not just religious dissidents and people actually wanting to come here.
You have two parents, so share half the genetic material with each. For a first cousin, you would share one-quarter of the same genetic material or 1/(2^2). By the time you get down to a 10th cousin, your common genetic material is 1/(2^12) or 1/4096th or 0.024%. I think Dick Cheney and BO are somewhere in this category. This would not be dissimilar to just about anyone in America with a pre-1670 ancestor.
LOL...could be worse.
My family was pre-1670, Massachusetts, NOT Plymouth. They settled at Martha’s Vineyard. Only person most people would know that I’m related to is the late Patrick Swayze. His family went back a LONG way in U.S. history.
” One of my relatives is listed in Wikipedia (Owen Fitzpen, very interesting story, by the way) and shares common ancestry with three U.S. Presidents.”
Actually, your relative, like Mitt Romney—if related to any president except Martin van Buren—is therefore related to ALL U.S. presidents (except van Buren).
http://weareallrelated.com/ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2698845/posts
I’m a little surprised Ancestry.com doesn’t know this.
Since I’m not going to do the search ... if someone else does.... and it ends up that I am related, I take no responsibility for sharing Genes with the Usurper in Chief
I’d much rather live in a hut in Kenya
TT
Many Mormons can trace some kinship to vast lists of famous people, due to the polygamy that they once practiced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.