Considering Scotland's move to become independent, is anyone

[hfojvt]

19. my point is that the Scots Viking ancestry

is no more significant than their non-Viking ancestry.

Not sure about every European being descended from every European in 1000 A.D. For one thing, not everybody alive then had kids. For another thing, not everybody who had descendants had the same amout of success.

Comparing some of the lines I know in some of my great-great-great grandparents. Just looking at the number of grandchildren they have - 72-40-39-39-34-22-19-16. Somebody with 72 grandchildren is much more likely to have numerous descendants than somebody with only 16.

Then there were things like the plague and the 30 years war killing massive amounts of people in some locations.

Then look at it from the other side. My ancestors, that I know of, were from Westphalia, Swabia, Prussia, Alsace, Switzerland, France, England, Scotland, The Netherlands, and Ireland. Scattered all over Europe, but still missing - Spain, Scandanavia, Poland, Greece, Italy, Russia and the Balkans. But with a little bit of stirring over the 700 years from 1700 back to 1000, I can see how my ancestors might cover much of Europe. Tougher to see how my former boss can do it since he is full blooded Norwegian.

Go back to 1800 and all of his ancestors are Norwegian. Hard to see how a bunch of people living in Cantal, France (for example) in 1000 AD are all going to make it into his bloodline.

I mean, sure we all have about 1.07 billion ancestors at that time when European population was perhaps just 30 million but that does not put all 30 million in everybody's pedigree.