Cleopatra - 87th great grandmother

@alisandewatterson I got the same thing!! So we must be cousins 87 times removed lol - how can it be? How could Cleopatra’s geneaoligy be done. I saw the lineage but it does seem too incredible. It didn’t even have a “twice removed” or anything. Just straight to 87th great Grandmother. I got a kick out of it when I found it.
I’m also Tony Blair’s 21st Cousin (more believable since my Dad’s Family is from the UK)
Interesting. I tried a whole bunch of Brits and Scandinavians since that is where I find most of my family tree. I tried random people and some showed NO LINEAGE so I don’t know who can come up with Cleopatra’s !
PJ

This isnt the egyptian queen cleopatra. There were more than one person with that name

You probably were thinking of this Cleopatra; she is the one who,is best known:

Cleopatra VII Philopator, Pharaoh of Egypt

but even "Cleopatra VII Philopator, Pharaoh of Egypt" is my second cousin 67 times removed.

I'm sorry she isn't my grandmother but a second cousin 67 times removed is still pretty cool.

Cleopatra VII Philopator, Pharaoh of Egypt is your 52nd great aunt's 16th great aunt's husband's partner.

Blue links stop at:

Ataulf, king of the Visigoths

Cleopatra VII Philopator, Pharaoh of Egypt is your second cousin 73 times removed.

The answer to your original question ,@alisandewatterson, is: "yes, it is 'possible,' but...." 87 generations and 5500+ years is a very long time in archeology, let alone crowd-sourced genealogy. But, it's definitely an interesting "possibility." It's even more fun when you find "ancestors" from 120+ generations back. And, you also find that you're "cousins" with at least 50-percent of Geni.com!

Thank you, Peter S. Cohl.

I forgot thev@peter S. Cohl.

Thanks, cousin Private User!

Ataulf, king of the Visigoths is my 45th great grandfather's wife's father.

And I’m sure I am related to half of geni.com

@cousin Peter S. Cohl

Sorry I missed this 50th cousin Private User! It looks like our last.common ancestor is Muhammad's great grandfather, Imaam Hashim (A'mr ul-U'la) bin Imaam ‘Abd al-Manāf.

Whatever connections I may have had through the Visigoths was likely severed long time ago........ The Assyrians on the other hand.....

The probability that this relationship is true is close to zero. There is a simple human and statistical reason: 1) Mothers name will mostly be clear and visible due to 9 months of pregnancy. 2) The probability of a cucoo child is say .. 3 per 100. The probability over 87 generations is then 0.97^87 which is less than 10 % probable. And since people love kings as forefathers, many a heritage paper has been falsified.

Truth.

I just came across my 53rd great grandfather. I'm not sure if this is possible, but with all the lords, dukes, kings, queens, etc... in my family tree - how come I'm no where near royal? Just the right connections centuries ago?

I am actually really wondering how this works.

Thank you, cousins. @Peter S Cohl, I imagine you could help explain it to me. I'm trying to make sense of Hakon's explanation.

Alisande

Dear Alisande,
The simple answer is patriarchy and birth order. It's on very recently that titles are passed to daughters, and even then, only first the first born. My own tree is similar to yours: some interesting, though likely debatable ancestors, followed by a number of non-first born, but quite decent, caring family. My great grandmother was the link to an illustrious Jewish history, who married an colorful young man whose wealth was lost within the first couple decades of their marriage. She died penniless, but left our world with a gift of light and love and descendents whose colorful lives brought much charity and creativity to their world.

To family!
Peter

I did think of that - that the links to all the royalty or illustrious people were from the non first born family that immigrated to the US very early in US history. Also because of religious persecution and the chance for freedom. I have many Quaker and Mennonite ancestors that kept very good records that immigrated early in US history. But maybe they were all second sons also.

It is fun thinking that some of it may be true. I think some of the not too far back on mine is because I’m doing a tree on ancestry some with documents that back some of the ancestors up but many without documentation. For example, I don’t know Welsh but on my trr they go back to 1430 - true or not.

Thanks, cousin

Cleopatra is my 65th GG. I was surprised to see this until I saw that it was through the Kings of Norway. As royalty weds royalty, and some royals were *Prolific* it makes sense that thousands of years later, their progeny would number in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands.

Congratulations. I’ve always been fascinated by Ancient Egypt. My 87 great grandfather was mark Anthony.

Private User here in Geni this "Cleopatra" has only 6 descendants so you must talk about other Cleopatra? (All these legends are ancestors to all us with european roots, more then one line. Pure mathematics. But in modern Egypt there are only about 2 percentages belonging to these ancient genetic lines.)