Is queen Elizabeth II, of The UK..., descended from the Byzantine Emperors?

Ummm.. No.

While royalty in europe did "mingle" and "breed" with eachother, i think the byzantines were not a part of that.

Western europe was not on good terms with the byzantines for much of the middle ages.

And after the middle ages constantinople was under turkish control so their would be no chance in hell of a sultan marrying western european royalty.

As far as I can discover, the last royal descendant of a Byzantine emperor was Feodor I of Russia, who died without heir.

In the early middle ages it was not uncommon for byzantine princesses to marry european kings, including several emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, I believe. But most of those family lines are supposed to have been extinguished.

I'm sorry, but this is possibly the daftest question I've ever seen asked on this forum. Why the hell would the Queen be related to the Byzantines?

By the way, bob, she's the Queen of Canada just as much as she is of the UK, you know...

In the early middle ages it was not uncommon for byzantine princesses to marry european kings, including several emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, I believe. But most of those family lines are supposed to have been extinguished.

I don't know about that. Children and grandchildren of Eastern emperors were handed out like party favours for centuries. By the time Byzantium fell there were lots and lots of royals and nobles throughout Europe with some Byzantine royal ancestry.

I'm sorry, but this is possibly the daftest question I've ever seen asked on this forum. Why the hell would the Queen be related to the Byzantines?

Come on, that's a bit harsh. The Queen is related to most of the other European Royal families, why not? I'm sure we've had any number of crackpot questions in this hallowed forum that were dafter than this.

I'm sorry, but this is possibly the daftest question I've ever seen asked on this forum. Why the hell would the Queen be related to the Byzantines?

By the way, bob, she's the Queen of Canada just as much as she is of the UK, you know...
Curiosity. :) :crazyeye:

I don't think there is a connetion between them. Byzantines - Orthodox; Western Europe - Catholic/Protestant. I bet that made marriages quite difficult. And i doubt that if a member of the royal byzantine family would convert for marriage he/she wouldn't have been disgraced or smthing.

I don't think pre-schism times are an issue. Who is the earliest ancestor of the current royal family ?

I'm no expert, so don't quote me on that.

I don't think there is a connetion between them. Byzantines - Orthodox; Western Europe - Catholic/Protestant. I bet that made marriages quite difficult.

Well, your bet is wrong since there were lots and lots of royal/noble marriages back and forth. Any cursory search of any royal genealogy site you care to google up (or even wikipedia) will find them in droves.

It was a lot harder for Byzantine royals to marry westerners than it was for western royals to marry each other, partly for religious reasons. There were plans for the empress Irene to marry Charlemagne, but they fell through because there was no way the Byzantine aristocracy were going to allow a western barbarian onto the throne: Irene was deposed and the plan fell through.

It just seemed such an out-of-nowhere question. Why Byzantium in particular?

As for who the earliest ancestor of the royal family is, no doubt the same as for the rest of us - a bunch of semi-erect chinless hairy creatures from the Rift Valley a few million years ago. The difference is that most of us have advanced a bit since then, but the royal family haven't...

I'd guess there's about a 100% percent chance the answer is yes. There were a lot of Byzantine emperors, they held onto part of Italy for a long time. If some of the Italian princes married decendants of Byzantine emperors, their blood would have found its way into the French and Spanish royal families, thence to England. Alternatively, they would have married into the noble families of the Holy Roman Empire, become ancestors of German princes, and got into the English royal family that way. All you really need is for Byzantine princesses to marry into the Medici family.

Now tracing a particular line of descent is another matter.

Of course, it's said that all Europeans alive today are descended from Charlemagne. I don't know how likely that is!

Of course, it's said that all Europeans alive today are descended from Charlemagne. I don't know how likely that is!
All European royalty is supposed to be descended from him, but I don't think every European is.

On a related topic, there are millions and millions of descendents of Genghis Khan around. I read a story once how people in Pakistan are actively trying to prove their descent from him because it makes them nobility or some such.

All European royalty is supposed to be descended from him, but I don't think every European is.

On a related topic, there are millions and millions of descendents of Genghis Khan around. I read a story once how people in Pakistan are actively trying to prove their descent from him because it makes them nobility or some such.

1 in 5 (He had a lot of women, wives, slaves)

All European royalty is supposed to be descended from him, but I don't think every European is.

On a related topic, there are millions and millions of descendents of Genghis Khan around. I read a story once how people in Pakistan are actively trying to prove their descent from him because it makes them nobility or some such.

They conducted some DNA tests on an episode of Digging for the Truth (a show on the History Channel here in the U.S.) and one of the scientists estimated that 8% of the people living in the modern-day boundaries of Chinggis Khan's empire are descended from him.

I was wondering 'cause i read somewhere that an niece of the last byzantine emperor married a russian tsar. And that the queen's great-great-whatever was related to the tsars. Just wasn't sure if it was the same family.

I was wondering 'cause i read somewhere that an niece of the last byzantine emperor married a russian tsar. And that the queen's great-great-whatever was related to the tsars. Just wasn't sure if it was the same family.
Queen Alexandra was a sister of Empress Daghma. They were both daughters of the King of Denmark. Sorry, no Byzantine connection through there.

Queen Alexandra was a sister of Empress Daghma. They were both daughters of the King of Denmark. Sorry, no Byzantine connection through there.
"Dagmar" I think.

(My best Besserwisser-fascist-style.)

Their father was Christian IX of Denmark, aka "The father in-law of Europe".:lol:

Pah, the english peasants could not have had possibly hoped to be related with the "King of Kings, king to those who are kings, vice regent of god on earth" :smug:

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Medieval/Bio/Zoe.jpg

All European royalty is supposed to be descended from him, but I don't think every European is.

On a related topic, there are millions and millions of descendents of Genghis Khan around. I read a story once how people in Pakistan are actively trying to prove their descent from him because it makes them nobility or some such.

It's likely all Europeans are from Confucius and quite possibly everyone in the world. His genes got into Europe through the Huns, whose leaders married Chinese royal princesses. I can't see that this has done much for the collective intelligence of mankind.

I was wondering 'cause i read somewhere that an niece of the last byzantine emperor married a russian tsar. And that the queen's great-great-whatever was related to the tsars. Just wasn't sure if it was the same family.

Zoe Palaiologina, the wife of Ivan the Great, was the niece of Constantine XI, the last Byzantine emperor, and the granddaughter of Manuel II. Their great-grandson was the aforementioned Tsar Feodor I, last of the Rurik dynasty.

Edit: That is, Feodor was the great grandson of Zoe and Ivan, not Zoe and Manuel. Watch your antecedents!

I'd guess there's about a 100% percent chance the answer is yes. There were a lot of Byzantine emperors, they held onto part of Italy for a long time.

Yeah, and they frequently married away daughters as political bargaining chips. Though records become increasingly spotty and unreliable the further back you go there seem to have been a lot of different points at which royal Byzantine genes have entered the larger European pool. For example, one of the early kings of Portugal apparently married an Emperor's daughter; generations later, one princess of that line showed up married to a Danish king; a bunch of their descendants went on to rule various bits of Scandinavia and northern Germany and become ancestors via various paths of most of the upper classes there, etc.

Of course, it's said that all Europeans alive today are descended from Charlemagne. I don't know how likely that is!

Reasonably likely. The man had something like seventeen known children, including several sons who lived to adulthood and went on to found recorded lineages of some significance. Considering that it was quite fashionable for noblemen to have both wives and mistresses and quite often unrecorded byblows as well, he got a good start on spreading his genes down the generations -- and it's been something like 40 or 50 generations since then, which is ample time to mix thoroughly. Go back 40 generations and each of us would have about 10^12 ancestors (in reality these would obviously overlap many times over).

Of course, it's said that all Europeans alive today are descended from Charlemagne. I don't know how likely that is!

According to that logic, everyone is descended from everyone who lived 1000 years ago.

I didn't use any logic, I simply reported a claim...

According to that logic, everyone is descended from everyone who lived 1000 years ago.

If you look back 2000 years or so, you're descended from about every prominent person who has left descendents at all. Julius Caesar and Confucius, yes, Jesus and Plato probably not.

If you look back 2000 years or so, you're descended from about every prominent person who has left descendents at all. Julius Caesar and Confucius, yes, Jesus and Plato probably not.

Except that Julius' known and suspected descendants all died out within two generations (though if his reputation was deserved, there may well have been any number of unrecorded byblows).

:bump: Queen Elizabeth II has no Byzantine ancestry. Her husband Prince Philip, however, is the grandson of King George I of Greece whose descent from the Palaeologus Dynasty of Byzantine emperors is well documented.

Did Plato not have kids then? Jesus is assumed not to, but if he did we would almost all be descended from him. Just as most if not all of us are descended from Byzantine royalty.

I'm not sure. Socrates did, though.

Socrates is reputed to have had three sons. I don't think much is known about Plato's family.

The concept that everyone is descended at one point from everyone alive collapses at a certain point in time because of the difficulties of transportation in early times. It is probably more accurate to say that a person is descended from all the persons living in a particular local area than itis to say the whole world. In fact, because the number of your ancestors doubles with each generation you go back, the greater likelihood that some of these ancestors will show up many times in one pedigree. It only takes about 275 years, roughly eleven generations, to arrive at the point where one person has over one million ancestors.

Simple tests can reveal the geographic origins of anyone's DNA within something like thirty broad localities. These are fairly inexpenisive and there are a number of on-line companies that perform them.

Plato was gay, so I doubt he had many children.

Being gay didn't really have much of an influence on whether people actually had kids, back in ancient Greece, I would think.

You may be right there. Still, there are gay men who get on incredibly well with women but also gay men who seem to exist in an exclusively male universe and don't know how to interact with anything in a skirt, and I get the impression that Plato was the latter kind rather than the former kind!

Yep, that is why wifes of spartan men actually cut their hair short and dressed like young boys very often, at least in beginning of their marriages. Men had only experiences of.. well, men (mentors!) so they needed something familiar. Sounds bit wierd, but is logical and true.

WHy exactly does Byzantine Bloodline matter to you so much? :)

The concept that everyone is descended at one point from everyone alive collapses at a certain point in time because of the difficulties of transportation in early times. It is probably more accurate to say that a person is descended from all the persons living in a particular local area than itis to say the whole world. In fact, because the number of your ancestors doubles with each generation you go back, the greater likelihood that some of these ancestors will show up many times in one pedigree. It only takes about 275 years, roughly eleven generations, to arrive at the point where one person has over one million ancestors.


Yes, but then again it would only take one person travelling to another region and leave descendancts there which in turn would propagate the alien ascendancy and so on. Therefore the only people that wouls only relate to an isolated region are some small amount of tribes in the Amazonian forest and New Guinea. The world is perhaps off, but the entire population of Europe, North Africa, Middle East and Central Asia at least is probably related to a relatively recent time. One can never underestimate our ancestors' promiscuity (and our own...). ;)

You may be right there. Still, there are gay men who get on incredibly well with women but also gay men who seem to exist in an exclusively male universe and don't know how to interact with anything in a skirt, and I get the impression that Plato was the latter kind rather than the former kind!

:p The term "gay" carries modern connotations which might not fit ancient ones with the same precision. An Athenian male citizen could have a younger male lover, be married and have children, and go out and drink with Heterae in the evening. He was eramenos, the "penetrator" (of just about anything). Instead of a term such as "gay" you may want to consider a scale with extremes at either end in general (in which Plato probably tended toward one). These options were available and potentially acceptable for urban male citizens of Athens.

Also some of Plato's ideas about love may not be perfectly representative of the Athenian context. They almost have an ascetic quality and are idealized from what I remember.

Is queen Elizabeth II, of The UK..., descended from the Byzantine Emperors?

Have any of you noticed that the the English royals were descended of the Byzantine Emperors in the 1300s? Check Edward III's ancestry, his line goes through many French/Spanish/German lines until he gets to Alexios I Komnenos, Roman (Eastern Roman) "Byzantine" Emperor.

Hell 1/16 people on this earth are probable decendents of Gengis Khan.
(he was prolific at beding hes enemys wives / daughters / concubines)

Have any of you noticed that the the English royals were descended of the Byzantine Emperors in the 1300s? Check Edward III's ancestry, his line goes through many French/Spanish/German lines until he gets to Alexios I Komnenos, Roman (Eastern Roman) "Byzantine" Emperor.

Which works because Elizabeth II is descended from Henry VII and his wife Elizabeth of York, both of whom were descended from Edward III.

If they're wearing Purple they're descended from the Byzantines.