In a message dated 02/2/14 3:53:44 PM, ddmmjm@netins.net writes: << It's not just the British! >> Well, I misquoted that portion terribly by 2 centuries or so, but yeah, if that was the statistics for England, then would an individual have a better chance of being related to a higher percentage of lesser populated areas... Choose any from a hat. Sweden, German Duchies or Kingdoms, Scots, French, etc...... Here's the part I misquoted as the 20c Englishman being related to 80 percent of 15c English population. (make that early 13c England) From: http://www.generations.on.ca/genealogy/pedigree.htm >>"Mr. K. W. Wachtel, a demographer cited by Shoumatoff, built a probability model for a child born in England in 1947. Around the time of King John who reigned from 1199 AD to 1216 AD, this 1947 child would have about two million grandparents in the same generation. This represents about 37% of the progenitors required 30 generations back. This is the first type of pedigree ‘collapse’ that occurs. The child would be descendant from 80% of all the people in England at that time. "<< Well, of course it wasn't just the British.... (snicker) How else would we have migrated so far and wide? With all those related populations, not every younger son or daughter could have waged war on or murdered family to inherit the family lands. Sooner or later, they had to go looking for a new place to call their own. :-)~