I’m always curious to see what search terms bring people to this site. Here is a list of all of the search terms that brought people here yesterday:

how shakespeare demonstrated “religion” in his plays

presidents with the letter y in their name

king henry viii shakespeare for children

who are the present day descendants of ann boleyn

king henry the eighth for kids

modern day descendants of henry the eighth

free shakespeare for kids

shakespeare did math

math – coins – line drawings of

saddam hussein vs. iago

textual analysis of elizabath i letter to king james vi

what play of shakespeare hads the word shyster in it?

characterize ophelia in act 3 scene 1

open-ended question of the week

who am i riddles

music tech teacher.com’

shakespeare class distinction “as you like it”

sir francis bacon blog

The word “shyster” does not appear in Shakespeare. There is a character named Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, and a popular anti-lawyer quote in Henry VI, Part Two.

Several United States presidents have had the letter Y in their names. First name: Ulysses S. Grant, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter; Last name: John Tyler, Rutherford B. Hayes, William McKinley, John F. Kennedy; First and Last Name: Zachary Taylor; Commonly Used Middle Name: John Quincy Adams, William Henry Harrison.

As for the Ophelia thing, do your own homework.

I’ve been trying to think how I could top last week’s Shakespeare Anagram, where I took Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” speech and anagrammed it into adapted versions of five other Hamlet speeches. I decided to attempt to anagram one entire scene from Shakespeare into an adapted version of another scene from Shakespeare.

I thought it best to use two scenes with the same characters, so that the letters in the speech prefixes would even out, and of course I needed to find two scenes of roughly equal length. I went for two scenes between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, the one just before the murder of Duncan and the one right after. (I’ll call the two scenes Beforekill and Afterkill, which I think has a clarity that calling them I.vii. and II.ii. lacks.)

Well, I did not get very far. In fact, I didn’t get past the very first step, which is to do a letter inventory. It turns out that Beforekill has over 30 more instances of the letter W than Afterkill has. This is a lot, considering that the scenes themselves are only about 90 lines long a piece. So, unless I want to add a bunch of web addresses, it’s probably not going to work. There are only so many times you can work “How now!” into conversation before it gets tedious.

It’s not a length issue, as Afterkill is rich in Rs and Ss, letters that you would expect to appear frequently in a given passage. Also, Afterkill has quite a few extra Ys than Beforekill and, oddly, about 20 more Gs! So why such a big W disparity in the other direction?

Part of it is a deliberate use on Shakespeare’s part of W alliteration in Beforekill, as in “which would be worn now” or “will I with wine and wassail,” but I think it’s more than that.

W is the letter of question words. When? Which? Why? How? Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are debating and planning the murder and are challenging each other with questions. W also the first letter of We. They are in this together. “If we should fail?” “We fail.”

After the murder, it’s all about Get this and Go there and Give me the daGGers. The soft W is used for coaxing and hedging. The hard G is used for scrambling and panicking. Awesome.

So there won’t be any full-scene anagrams, at least not right now. But I enjoyed discovering the reason why not, and thought you might enjoy it too.

I subscribe to a service called “SiteMeter” which allows me to see a limited amount of information about my visitors. One thing that I can see is if someone finds my site via a Google search. Recently, I’ve had a number of hits from people looking to find out about living descendants of King Henry VIII. My site isn’t really about that, but I thought I’d provide an answer anyway, as a public service.

There are no living descendants of King Henry VIII.

Henry’s father, King Henry VII, had four offspring who lived past childhood: Arthur, Margaret, Henry, and Mary. Arthur was always expected to be the next king, but he died in 1502. When Henry VII died in 1509, the kingdom was passed to his younger son, crowned Henry VIII.

Henry VIII had four known living offspring from four different women. His first wife, Catherine of Arragon, gave him a daughter, Mary (born 1516). He had an illegitimate son, Henry FitzRoy (born 1519), with his mistress Elizabeth Blount. His second wife, Ann Boleyn, had a daughter Elizabeth (born 1533). His third wife, Jane Seymour, had a son, Edward (born 1537). Henry VIII would have three more wives, but no more children to carry on his line. And as we shall see, none of his four branches would bear fruit.

Henry FitzRoy died in 1536, while his father was still alive.

When Henry VIII died in 1547, young Edward became King Edward VI, but died in 1553 with no heir. He was 15 years old. That was the end of Henry’s Y chromosome. But what about the daughters?

There was a brief reign by Lady Jane Grey (not a descendant of Henry VIII, but a granddaughter of his sister Mary) and then Henry VIII’s daughter Mary took the throne as Queen Mary I of England. You may know her as Bloody Mary.

(Don’t confuse either Mary with Mary Queen of Scots, who was yet a third Mary. She is a descendant of Henry VIII’s sister Margaret. We’ll come back to her in a bit.)

Mary I of England died in 1558 with no offspring, leaving the country in the capable hands of her sister Elizabeth. During the 45-year-long reign of Queen Elizabeth I, we saw a new Golden Age which included the rise of Shakespeare and Sir Francis Bacon. But alas, we saw no heir. Elizabeth died in 1603, ending her father’s biological legacy forever.

The crown then passed to the son of Mary Queen of Scots, who was James VI of Scotland at the time. He became King James I of England. And Shakespeare quickly began work on Macbeth. Note that the British monarchy even today can be traced back to King Henry VII, the father of King Henry VIII.

But King Henry VIII himself has no known living descendants.

I hope this was helpful for at least some of you. For the rest of you, expect a new Conundrum tomorrow.

UPDATE: An anagram version of the answer!

Just a few items I’ve been meaning to link to for a while now, but never could find the right context:

• Priests to Purify Site After Bush’s Visit – President Bush has apparently lost the Mayan vote.
• Germany GenWeb Project Map List – Here’s another collection of cool historical maps.
• ABC Plans Show Based on GEICO Caveman – It was entertaining for thirty seconds. Let’s try it for a season or two.
• D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y.com – Just in case you were wondering how to spell it.

When I first started this blog, one of my very first posts suggested that almost all of the current natives of Mongolia and China were probably descendants of Genghis Khan. I literally had no readers at the time – I hadn’t yet told anyone about the blog – and so there was nobody to challenge my sweeping statement. I didn’t even make an argument. I’d like to give my argument now, and reopen the question as a Conundrum.

The idea was based on a National Geographic article about the biological legacy of Genghis Khan:

An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today.

I went on to note:

16 million descendants. And that’s only men descended from Khan directly through the male line, father to son, for the past 800 years. The total number of Khan’s descendants living today is truly incalculable.

If you figure an average of four generations per century, that’s 32 generations between Genghis and his living descendants. Each person living today should have around 2 to the power of 32, or roughly 4.3 billion, living ancestors that are contemporary with Khan. Obviously, many individuals will have to be counted more than once, so let’s take a different tack.

Let’s pick a year somewhere between 1200 and 2000, say 1500. The total population of mainland Asia in 1500 was 268,400,000. Each living person today would have approximately 2 to the power of 20, or about a million, ancestors who were around in 1500 (and that’s if we don’t count anyone with a living parent).

So how many of the 268,400,000 around in 1500 were Khan’s descendants? Well, there are 16 million men living today that share the Y chomosome. If Khan and his direct male heirs had an average of 1.68 sons over 32 generations, that would give us our 16 million. That would only account for 505 men carrying that Y chromosome in 1500. But that calcuation leaves out two factors.

First, by 1500, Khan’s seed had been pretty well spread. The factors that account for his prevalence today came mostly into play during Khan’s life and the few generations following (see the article for details). So the distribution was a lot more top-heavy than the calculation above would suggest.

Second, we’re only counting direct male-line heirs. Passing a Y chromosome down from father to son over 32 generations is only one of 4.3 billion different permutations of inheritance. Each of those 16 million Y chromosome carriers alive today probably has an average of at least one sister or daughter. That doubles the known descendants right there. Extend that back over 32 generations, then consider all of their descendants, and you get the idea. If we change “average of 1.68 sons over 32 generations” (which we know is true) to “average of 2 children of either sex over 32 generations” (which doesn’t seem like too great of a leap from there), then 16 million becomes 4.3 billion, greater than the population of mainland Asia today.

It seems to me that today’s ethnic Mongolians and Chinese would almost all have to be descended from Khan, some many times over.

Now I am no math expert. I’m a Shakespeare Teacher. It’s very possible I could be wrong about this. I’d be interested to hear what other people think, particularly people with more professional experience with statistical analysis.

And I should also point out that I pin no political, moral, or judgmental significance to being a descendant of Genghis Khan. This is simply a math, history, and logistical Conundrum. I truly hope no offense is taken (though if you read my original post and the Economist article it is based on, it actually seems to be a point of pride for both Mongolia and China to be the descendants of Khan). And my family comes from Belarus, so this would mean I’m probably a descendant of Khan as well. So don’t screw with me.

Now, with all that in mind, for this week’s Conundrum, I hereby submit my original conclusion up for public scrutiny:

So, China and Mongolia should probably stop arguing over which of their people are the true heirs of Genghis Khan. My guess is, almost all of them are.

As if the video in Saturday’s post wasn’t endearing enough, here’s Norah Jones performing a modified version of “Don’t Know Why” on Sesame Street while sitting next to Elmo.

It’s kind of like Ernest & Bertram, but different.

We all know words that end with -ly are adverbs. Except when they aren’t.

Can you name a noun, verb, adjective, conjunction, and interjection that end in -ly?

(I wasn’t able to think of a pronoun or preposition, but if you can, post that too!)

How about a holiday, an insect, a country, and three characters from Shakespeare that end in -ly?

Can you name two former U.S. presidents with “ly” somewhere in their first names?

Post whatever you have in the comments below, and I’ll try to respond promptly!

UPDATE: Correct responses submitted by Erin (5), Kenneth W. Davis (4), and DeLisa (4). See comments for answers.

Via the original creators of Charlie the Unicorn, it is my great honor to be able to share the German re-dub of Charlie the Unicorn.

Discuss.

Well, as long as I’m already being blocked by the filter, I may as well share this with you.

It’s an eight-minute adaptation of Lillian Hellman’s play The Children’s Hour starring Ernie and Bert from Sesame Street. What more needs to be said?

(Warning: Adult Language and Content)

This film was shown at Sundance in 2002 to great acclaim, but Sesame Workshop’s lawyers put the kibosh on it, and it was pulled from release.

For another fascinating story about Bert, check out the Bert Is Evil page of one of my all-time favorite websites, Snopes.com, to find out how Bert accidentally ended up at an anti-American protest rally in Bangladesh:

The Osama bin Laden poster – with the muppet – was displayed at rallies by pro-bin Laden protesters and appeared in photographs carried by news agencies such as Reuters and Associated Press.

The technology of today has an incredible potential to make the physical distances between us much less of a barrier. Other distances between us may take some more time.