Thread: Tracing your genealogy-Braveheart by mel gibson

since marriages were arranged with kings etc back in 1200 ad i wonder if they had more affairs

maybe ill type more into this post later

someone told me i may be related to king edward1 longshanks-he was sort of crazy and maybe i dont want to be though

so when i encounter rumors online one descendant was married to one man but may have known or had sex with another around 1300ad how do i prove it?

what was the penalty for adultery back in 1300ad?

and what did they do to gays?

anyone heard of Elizabeth de burgh? theywere nuts like her father starved his cousin to death

if was back there i may have sought some normal person myself instead of some crazy baron to hang out with all the time

maybe ill never find out the truth

wikipedia says Edward never shoved the guy out window

Originally Posted by Holmes

maybe ill type more into this post later

someone told me i may be related to king edward1 longshanks-he was sort of crazy and maybe i dont want to be though


if was back there i may have sought some normal person myself instead of some crazy baron to hang out with all the time

maybe ill never find out the truth

How did you find out you could be a descendant of Edward the First?
I suspect he would be keen to deny the relationship if he were still around.

why would he be keen to deny the relationship?

youre very helpful-im being sarcastic

Kings and nobles had more extra marital affairs than the poorer people, simply because they could. Not only are women more attracted to men in power, but often those men were sufficiently powerful to simply order some unfortunate woman to his bed.

As a result, illegitimate offspring to kings and nobles were very common. Often such a man would have more illegitimate offspring than legitimate.

Wives in medieval times had less power than they do today, and could not simply leave their husbands, if said husbands were playing around. Especially if the husband was the king. So, simply, there were a lot of children born to kings out of wedlock.

Braveheart drifts as far from historical accuracy as a movie can get. Almost nothing depicted in this movie has a factual basis. The belted plaids were worn backwards and in the wrong era, characters were mis-characterized, and "jus primae noctis" was just plain bull.

Braveheart is a 1995 American epic drama film directed by and starring Mel Gibson. The film was written for the screen and then novelized by Randall Wallace. Gibson portrays William Wallace, a Scottish warrior who gained recognition when he came to the forefront of the First War of Scottish Independence by opposing King Edward I of England, also known as "Longshanks" (Patrick McGoohan).
Read more:-

mel gibson quotes

Originally Posted by Holmes

and what did they do to gays?

Depends on the period and the place. The notion of someone being gay, as part of their identity, is a 19th century concept. This is sometimes a difficult thing to grasp, because Medieval people didn't even conceive of gender in the same way as us. There is a famous example of a French hermaphrodite who was male for a good deal of her life and then switched later on, and somehow this was tolerated.

However, sodomy was often used as a catchall accusation during the inquisition to burn people the Catholic church didn't like, but records show that most people arrested for sodomy were not executed, and rarely were teenage boys in relationships with older men severely punished. (Note that sodomy means any sexual act not intended for reproduction, it could include engaging in hand jobs or oral sex)

Anyway, the short answer is that depending on the place punishments could range from a slap on the hand to death, or the behavior could be completely ignored (whose gonna cause trouble for a nobleman with a few male lovers). Laws against sodomy were not officially enacted in England until the 19th century. Oddly enough female homosexuality was never made illegal, talk about double standards psshh.

Famously, Edward II was reputedly unable to refuse granting favors to his male beaus, and this was one of the major reasons he was deposed. An account written 50 years afterward alleged that he was killed by hot lead being poured into his anus, which historians tend to agree is unlikely. However, the fact that someone would write such an account would suggest that homosexuality was certainly frowned upon, which is to be expected at the time.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by Holmes

maybe ill type more into this post later

someone told me i may be related to king edward1 longshanks-he was sort of crazy and maybe i dont want to be though


if was back there i may have sought some normal person myself instead of some crazy baron to hang out with all the time

maybe ill never find out the truth

How did you find out you could be a descendant of Edward the First?
I suspect he would be keen to deny the relationship if he were still around.

haha

You realize, of course, that by the time you look ten generations back, you're likely to have 1024 ancestors in that generation (unless some are repeated). If you look 20 generations back, you'll have 1,048,576, and by the time you look back 30 generations repetitions should happen quite a lot because then you have 1,073,741,824.

Go back any further than that, and the number of names would exceed the population of planet Earth at that time. I doubt there is any human being alive (except some people from purely indigenous blood lines), who doesn't have at least a drop of royal blood.

Originally Posted by kojax

You realize, of course, that by the time you look ten generations back, you're likely to have 1024 ancestors in that generation (unless some are repeated). If you look 20 generations back, you'll have 1,048,576, and by the time you look back 30 generations repetitions should happen quite a lot because then you have 1,073,741,824.

Go back any further than that, and the number of names would exceed the population of planet Earth at that time. I doubt there is any human being alive (except some people from purely indigenous blood lines), who doesn't have at least a drop of royal blood.

A while back, I have to look it up again, blood samples taken from the British royal show that they have a mitochondrial haplotype that is relatively rare in Western Europe, but very common in the Middle East, and to a lesser extent Eastern Europe.

Although, the purpose of the genetic test was to see if a recovered blood sample from a grave in Russia was of Czar Nicholas' child, and they used the British royals to check.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Originally Posted by kojax

You realize, of course, that by the time you look ten generations back, you're likely to have 1024 ancestors in that generation (unless some are repeated). If you look 20 generations back, you'll have 1,048,576, and by the time you look back 30 generations repetitions should happen quite a lot because then you have 1,073,741,824.

Go back any further than that, and the number of names would exceed the population of planet Earth at that time. I doubt there is any human being alive (except some people from purely indigenous blood lines), who doesn't have at least a drop of royal blood.

A while back, I have to look it up again, blood samples taken from the British royal show that they have a mitochondrial haplotype that is relatively rare in Western Europe, but very common in the Middle East, and to a lesser extent Eastern Europe.

Although, the purpose of the genetic test was to see if a recovered blood sample from a grave in Russia was of Czar Nicholas' child, and they used the British royals to check.

"the british royal show"who?the Windsors?the tutors? the Plantagenets?the early ones too?