Its all about the FAMILY!

[STING2]

Yep, its true, George Bush and John Kerry are cousins! Both men are descendents of Edmund Reade(1563-1623) and Elizabeth Cooke(1578-1637). George Bush and John Kerry are 9th cousins, twice removed. You can clearly see their relationship through the generations with this family tree map here:

http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush4/tree.htm


Edmund Reade and Elizabeth Cooke got married and lived in Wickford England. They were married on November 14, 1592. George Bush descends from their daughter Margaret Reade who was born July 11, 1598, while John Kerry descends from their daughter Elizabeth Reade who was born in 1615. Both sisters came to America with their husbands in the 1620s and 1630s. Elizebeth's husband was the first governor of the Connecticut Colony.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

I bet the conspiracy theorists are gonna love this!
As if Skull and Bones wasn't enough for them.

 

[pax]

Doesn't this usually happen? Like, almost all of the Presidents can trace their ancestry back to Western European nobility or something?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Doesn't this usually happen? Like, almost all of the Presidents can trace their ancestry back to Western European nobility or something?

yeah, it's a bit of a stretch to go back to the 1500s...methinks if we all traced our family tree back that far, at least half of us would be related!

 

[STING2]

Doesn't this usually happen? Like, almost all of the Presidents can trace their ancestry back to Western European nobility or something?

First, being able to make these conections is often impossible because certain family lines come to a dead end in area's where records were either destroyed some how or record keeping had not started.

I don't think Edmund Reade and Elizabeth Cooke were "nobility". Many of the people who came to America in the 1600s were often just common people looking for a better life.

In addition, when was the last time you heard that two presidential candidates were related in any way, let alone having the relationship be this close. No, not close in terms we would consider to be close, but compared to lines that connect by going back 27 generations or more, this is very close. Bush is significantly more related to John Kerry (9th cousin twice removed) than he is to Churchhill and Princess Diana who he was 25th cousins with.

It is amazing that the link was found and also amazing that it was this close. Again, when was the last time two US presidential candidates were found to be related to each other, especially this close of a relationship?

 

[STING2]

yeah, it's a bit of a stretch to go back to the 1500s...methinks if we all traced our family tree back that far, at least half of us would be related!

When was the last time two US presidential candidates were found to be related, especially this close? Certainly, the farther you go back, the more often this occurs, but its a stretch to see that half of us would be related if you went back to the 1500s. There are probably only at most 400,000 people today, that have as close or a closer relationship to George Bush than John Kerry does. When you consider that there are over 6 Billion people on the planet, John Kerry is more related to George Bush than 99.99% of people living today! In that respect, it is indeed a close relationship.

 

[verte76]

This is really interesting. Thanks for posting this info Sting!

 

[Doozer61]

6 degrees of separation

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

When was the last time two US presidential candidates were found to be related, especially this close? Certainly, the farther you go back, the more often this occurs, but its a stretch to see that half of us would be related if you went back to the 1500s. There are probably only at most 400,000 people today, that have as close or a closer relationship to George Bush than John Kerry does. When you consider that there are over 6 Billion people on the planet, John Kerry is more related to George Bush than 99.99% of people living today! In that respect, it is indeed a close relationship.

i'm sure if most americans with a european descent (thus excluding americans who are native americans or from elsewhere, such as asia or africa) had their family trees go back about 25 generations there'd be a relation there too.

and you know, you really didn't have to post the same thing twice to me and pax.

 

[STING2]

i'm sure if most americans with a european descent (thus excluding americans who are native americans or from elsewhere, such as asia or africa) had their family trees go back about 25 generations there'd be a relation there too.

and you know, you really didn't have to post the same thing twice to me and pax.

In the case of Kerry and Bush, were only talking 10 to 12 generations, NOT 25 generations! You will of course eventually if one goes back far enough, come to a point where everyone is related, but its definitely NOT 10 to 12 generations. If you go back to your total number of ancestors at 3 generations you have 8, your Great Grand Parents. If you go back 12 generations you have 4,096, your (10)Great Grandparents. But once one goes back 25 generations you have 33,554,432, your (23)Great Grandparents. Having studied genealogy, there are many surprising conections that are made, but going back 10 generations is not much at all which is the case with Bush and Kerry.

25 generations is whole different ball game and is complicated by the fact of so many first cousins getting married which means family trees will start to have entire lines repeated in multiple area's. If one did have 33,554,432 different individuals on their 25th generation line with them all being from Europe, then one might be able to make the claim, that they have a relationship to everyone of European descent at that point. I'll have to look up the estimated population of Europe in 1300 which is very roughly where 25 generations back would put you. Problem is, many people on the 25th generation line will be repeated multiple times on that same line because of large number of first cousins that use to marry.

and you know, if you read my previous post to you and pax, you'll see that they were different posts.

 

[verte76]

That's right, Sting, there is definitely a difference between 10 and 25 generations. I haven't traced any of my ancestors back that far. I'd have to look at the chart to actually count, but I think that Scottish birth in 1680 or thereabouts is eight generations. There have been the bogus claims to aristocratic/royal ancestry to shift through. These claims are usually not true. OK, if you went back 2000 years you'd probably find at least one blue-blood. But what the hell, that's true of all of us.

 

[A_Wanderer]

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 etc.

As one can see going back just a few generations creates a lot of ties.

 

[hiphop]

Interesting.

Kerrys and Bushs would definitely be more familiar with each other (familiar meaning their social family ties would be stronger) if both were born and raised in an African clan. Nine generations is a little much, but six would do:

"Imagine that all the descendants of one man, some six generations back, knew about this kinship, exchanged Christmas cards and felt an obligaton to call on you when they were in your erea. You have to stretch your imagination a little further to conceive that all the younger members of this group would not date each other and would no more think of marrying than they would contemplate marriage with a brother or a sister. Such a situation would basically be that of the Nuer clan."

Pocock, David "Understanding Social Anthropology"