Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What percentage of US presidents are related to King John of England?
Executive Summary
Most genealogical summaries cited in the provided analyses conclude that nearly all U.S. presidents are descended from King John of England, with estimates clustering around 97–100% depending on whether the total count of presidents includes the current officeholder and which president[1] are treated as exceptions (notably Martin Van Buren). The underlying finding rests on repeated reconstructions of deep, often distant, ancestry and on different tallies of how many individuals have served as president (45, 46, etc.) in the sources provided [2] [3] [4].
1. Bold Claim: “Nearly Every President Is a Plantagenet Cousin”
The dominant claim across the materials is that almost every person who has served as U.S. president traces some line of descent to King John of England. One source explicitly asserts that every president listed (45 in that dataset, through Donald Trump) has a documented relationship to King John, yielding a 100% figure for that sample [2]. Other accounts report that all but Martin Van Buren are related, giving percentages around 97–98% depending on whether they count 45, 46, or 44 presidents total; one analysis states 45 of 46 ≈ 97.8% [3], while another reports 42 of 43 (≈ 97.7%) or 43 of 44 (≈ 98%) in different iterations [4]. These claims are presented as factual genealogical findings in the cited summaries.
2. The Numbers Diverge — Why Percentages Shift
The numerical disagreement stems from varying denominators and which presidents are included, not from a contradiction on the core ancestral links. Some statements count 45 presidents (ending with Donald Trump) and conclude 100% for that set [2]. Others count 46 individuals (including Joe Biden) and report 45 of 46 related (≈ 97.8%) [3]. A separate source gives 42 of 43 (≈ 97.7%) or updates to 43 of 44 (≈ 98%) depending on whether newer research is folded in [4]. The differences are procedural: definitions of the population (how many presidents to include) and identification of exceptions (notably Martin Van Buren in multiple reports) drive the small shifts in percentage points.
3. How These Genealogies Are Built — Distant and Numerous Connections
All accounts rely on deep genealogical tracing of many ancestral lines, often spanning many centuries and branching through collateral relatives. These reconstructions typically identify distant descent, sometimes through multiple lines, which raises the probability that any modern person of European ancestry will share an ancestor like King John due to exponential ancestor expansion and pedigree collapse. One source explicitly references the phenomenon that large fractions of modern populations can be descended from medieval monarchs, implying that such findings are not surprising given demographic history [5]. The technical methods — linking parish records, published family trees, and secondary compilations — are not detailed uniformly across the summaries, which affects transparency.
4. Conflicting Accounts and the Role of Single Discoveries
Several widely circulated claims trace back to high-profile but unevenly documented discoveries, including media stories about a young researcher asserting links for most presidents; these accounts are reproduced in the materials [6] [7]. The presence of multiple secondary sources (WikiTree, popular articles, and enrichment pieces) repeating similar conclusions amplifies the claim but does not substitute for independent verification. One analysis notes that many presidents have English or British Isles ancestry generally (38 with English roots, for example), which supports the plausibility of connections to medieval English royalty but does not prove direct descent from King John in every case without corroborating source citations [8].
5. Assessing Reliability — Patterns, Agendas, and Limits
The convergence of multiple genealogical summaries on nearly universal descent suggests a robust pattern, yet the materials show variation in rigor and sourcing. User-contributed genealogical aggregators (mentioned among the sources) can be accurate but are also prone to errors or circular linkages; popular articles may highlight surprising findings because they are newsworthy. Some summaries present the conclusion as surprising or sensational (a hook for readers), which signals a potential agenda of attention rather than an explicit scholarly endorsement [4] [7]. The lack of uniformly cited primary records in the supplied analyses means the claim should be understood as plausible and repeatedly reported, but contingent on the genealogical methods used.
6. Bottom Line: High Likelihood with Important Caveats
Taken together, the supplied analyses indicate a very high likelihood — roughly 97–100% depending on counting choices — that a substantial majority of U.S. presidents are descended from King John of England [2] [3] [4]. This result is consistent with the demographic reality that many Americans of European descent share deep medieval ancestors. However, small numerical differences arise from which presidents are counted and how exceptions like Martin Van Buren are treated, and the underlying genealogical links rely on secondary compilations with variable transparency [5] [8]. For a definitive scholarly verdict, each presidential lineage would need primary documentary verification and peer-reviewed genealogical scrutiny.