The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers

Butters’ ancestry?

(1/5) > >>

Vodyanoy:
So, we know that Michael is a descendent of Charlemagne, Sanya of Saladin and Shiro was a descendant of the last king of Okinawa (IIRC?)

The short story detailing his first job against the Baku made it sound like he was into it for the long haul. That makes me wonder, who is he a descendant of?

I’m guessing it would be Solomon?

(Apologies if this has already been covered before!)

Kindler:
Solomon's a possibility. Ditto David. Lots of monarchs in Israelite history.

I'm not sure what Butters's ethnicity is, though. He may not be ethnically Jewish, but descended from converts. For example, he may be descended from Khazar, a Turkish nomadic society (well, not completely nomadic, but close enough for this discussion) that converted en masse to Judaism by decree of King... Bulin? Bulen? Bulon? Anyway, not sure, but the monarch said "We're converting," and (I think something like 1,200-1,300 years ago) they did.

Anywho, without knowing more about his background other than "Jewish," it's hard to really pin down. Fun fact: "Waldo" comes from the German word "wald," which means "rule" (as in "monarch"). If his family observed a tradition among Jewish families—naming children after deceased (Ashkenazi) or living (Sephardic) relatives—it's possible his family tree has some German roots.

Vodyanoy:

I’d never heard of Khazar society, or the etymological roots of the name Waldo. Thank you, I’ve learned something new today and it’s only 7 am!

The origins of his name make me wonder more about this. Now, whether it’s by design or just coincidence, I guess we won’t know until later.

Kindler:
Honestly, my biggest issue with the "must be descended from a Monarch" rule is that there are a LOT of people distantly descended from ancient monarchs. Charlemagne was kickin' it from the 750s-810s, and had a whopping TWENTY children. Average length of a generation is about 30 years. So we'll call it 40 generations. That's a lot of people. Even if you're only counting male heirs—even if half of each generation dies without bearing children—you're talking about hundreds or thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people (remember, they're Catholic) who are "descended" from royalty. Let's even say that the Black Plague reset the family tree all the way back to one heir; you're still talking about tons of people. And in checking my math, I found this Wiki article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_descent

They even list Charlemagne as an example. The further back in time you count, the greater your chance of being descended from a monarch (and, incidentally, if Michael's descended from Charlemagne, it's entirely possible he's also descended from William the Conqueror more recently, which ties into my whole "Hastings is super important" line of thought).

I'm lucky in that my great grandfather was a genealogist, and his Magnum Opus was tracing my family's history as far back as there were records. My lineage has been traced back to 1066 (which may be why I have such a hard focus on Hastings) to the Doomsday Book. Turns out I'm descended from Barons. Now, my family was staunchly Protestant and fled to America in the 1630s, so you're talking about 1-2 children per generation (and lots of my family tree died as young men in conflicts like the American Revolution (yes, I'm a Son of the Revolution) and the American Civil War), so there aren't very many of us left.

I mean, 16 million people (.5% of the world population) are descended from Genghis Khan, right? Toss one of those a Sword.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that, in reality, it's not all that special. There were lots of monarchs across the world over the past few millennia, and lots of them had lots of kids. One report says that basically every native British person is descended from royalty at some point, if you go far enough back.

Bad Alias:

--- Quote from: Kindler on August 26, 2019, 02:19:19 PM ---My [on both my mother and father's sides] lineage has been traced back to 1066. Turns out I'm descended from Barons. Now, my family was staunchly Protestant and fled to America in the 1630s.

--- End quote ---

Me too, except I'm not sure how many were staunchly Protestant. I know some fled for purely political reasons. It was my great uncle on my mother's side, and he "published" his findings to the family back to when whichever branch landed in America. It was some great aunt on my dad's side, and I know a lot less about that one except "we" came over on the Mayflower. Both my last name and my mother's maiden name didn't exist before 1066 as family names and are actually French, but are recognized as English/Scottish.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page