"Nocent" is an archaic word that means guilty, the opposite of innocent.
342
Antonio López de Santa Anna served twelve non-consecutive terms as President of Mexico. Grover Cleveland eat your heart out.
343
Reno, Nevada is further west than Los Angeles, California.
344
The facial hair style known as "sideburns" is named after U.S. Civil War general Ambrose Burnside.
345
The effects of wealth disparity can last for centuries. In the year 1066, the Normans conquered England and placed themselves on top of the social hierarchy. More than 900 years later, people with Norman last names are still about 10% wealthier than their Anglo-Saxon counterparts.
Interesting quirk, but by now the maternal / paternal surnames are so intertwined after, say, 2^40th power (1,099,511,627,776 or 1 trillion several times more or less) ancestor combinations it seems more a fluke. This, especially considering there were only about 4 million people (1/250,000th of 1 trillion) in England halfway through that time frame and only 60 million (1/17,000th of 2^40) now.
Simple exponential math means ancestry beyond 3 centuries or so in a population becomes nationwide inbreeding with no pure non-relatives left.
this doesn't seem sound; it's not random chance whether you marry someone, how many kids you have, where the wealth goes, who inherits what surname, etc. all of these are weighted. european royal inbreeding is one clear example.
Well for example all but one U.S. president is descended from English (Norman) King John, born 100 years after the Norman Conquest. Dutchman Martin Van Buren being the exception. And from there, John was the great great grandson of William the Conqueror, the first Norman king. This includes Americans of all wealth and social disparities. People who grew up in poverty like Lincoln and Clinton or wealth like the Bushes and Roosevelts.
So yeah after 30 generations (1,073,741,824 ancestors at that generation) or 40 generations (1,099,511,627,776 ancestors of that generation), everyone of recent English descent is related to William the first Norman king. English people alive during 1066 when he conquered England: only 1,200,000 to 2,500,000. 1,099,511,627,776 is almost 1,000,000 times more than 1,200,000. So a LOT of common ancestry at that point.
....Names can be deceiving, many of the people working on estates of Norman rulers adopted the surnames of their rulers. Most never had surnames as such and usually were known as John the son as Johnson etc. when surnames were used they gave the name of the owner of the estate. Working on the William's estate you would call yourself John 'Williams'. DNA studies have shown that the Norman conquest of England did not leave any genetic evidence among the population. Celtic and Anglo Saxon and Saxon is the major makeup of the British people, the English having as much Celtic DNA as People in Scotland and Wales. see
He mostly served in dribs and drabs, about 54 months (4 1/2 years) in total over about 18 years .......... so Grover Cleveland served as President for 3 1/2 years longer.
That's a good example of statistics being abused. Norman sounding names don't neccessarily mean it's a Norman family that was richer to begin with. Over the course of hundreds of years, that family married into other families and had hundreds of opportunities for their wealth to be changed. I know a family whose father was a millionaire and left over $100 million to his kids, who have since lown almost all of their inheritance.
Normans were an elite group when they entered England, and so probably married into other elites. Even though Normans aren't distinguishable today to the degree there is a disparity I would assume it's because the people with Norman last names have higher general intelligence do to their elite ancestors.
Simple exponential math means ancestry beyond 3 centuries or so in a population becomes nationwide inbreeding with no pure non-relatives left.
So yeah after 30 generations (1,073,741,824 ancestors at that generation) or 40 generations (1,099,511,627,776 ancestors of that generation), everyone of recent English descent is related to William the first Norman king. English people alive during 1066 when he conquered England: only 1,200,000 to 2,500,000. 1,099,511,627,776 is almost 1,000,000 times more than 1,200,000. So a LOT of common ancestry at that point.
....Names can be deceiving, many of the people working on estates of Norman rulers adopted the surnames of their rulers. Most never had surnames as such and usually were known as John the son as Johnson etc. when surnames were used they gave the name of the owner of the estate. Working on the William's estate you would call yourself John 'Williams'. DNA studies have shown that the Norman conquest of England did not leave any genetic evidence among the population. Celtic and Anglo Saxon and Saxon is the major makeup of the British people, the English having as much Celtic DNA as People in Scotland and Wales. see