Genghis Khan's genetic legacy has competition
nature.com
nature.com
Genghis Khan actually rose from a modest station in life, unremarkable by that time and place's standards. But you're right that it was a family thing - he had lots and lots of descendants, about half of which were male, and these descendants inherited some of the high status of their father, and therefore also had lots of descendants. And so on over generations, until the status faded.
It was a family thing indeed, but it started with one man, and that man was Temujin, a.k.a. Genghis Khan.
The "founder" is defined like this:
You notice that a large portion of men in a population share a Y chromosome. The chromos are not exactly identical, due to the natural rate of mutations. You determine the amount of mutations, from the existing population, that would make all those Ys converge on the same chromosome back in time.
Knowing the amount of mutations, and knowing the average natural rate of mutations, you can calculate the time - let's say 1000 years ago. It then follows that 1000 years ago there was a man who had lots of descendants - and this is the "founder".
In the "career" of that chromosome, there's a natural bottleneck right until the "founder's" generation. After that there's a sudden expansion.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg20...
"Here we surveyed a total of 5321 Y-chromosomes from 127 Asian populations, including novel Y-SNP and microsatellite data on 461 Central Asian males, to ask whether additional lineage expansions could be identified."
Looks like all the lineages involve Asian males, so a more probable guess would be, say, the ruling family of the Abbasid Caliphate, which reached its greatest extent around 850.
However, in this exemple (Charlemagne), I doubt it unless he had a lot of bastard children.
In the example of my grandmother, she had up to 20 children (excluding those that didn't even make it to birth), but only 17 of them lived. The poor still had a lot of children, albeit with more issues, so I doubt the social capital would help here.
I have no idea, really. But this in an interesting conversation.
Do the math...this is clearly false.
20 legitimate kids or 20 total kids. I find it hard to believe that he had just 20. I'm sure he had a tremendous number of bastards.
Secondly, his grandson Hulagu Khan, sacked Baghdad and killed the Caliph, taking his harem. He took 100 of the concubines/wives.
http://www.baluch-rugs.com/History/Biographies/Hulagu_Baghda...
"Hulagu now gave orders that the Caliph’s harem should be numbered, and it was found to contain 700 wives and concubines, and 1,200 servants. He thereupon implored that 100 of the females, on whom the sun and moon had never shone, should be handed back to him, and this being granted he selected his relatives."
edit: Looks like a commenter addresses it: "Here is part of the abstract of that paper: "We suggest that the lineage was spread by Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) nobility, who were a privileged elite sharing patrilineal descent from Giocangga (died 1582), the grandfather of Manchu leader Nurhaci, and whose documented members formed approximately 0.4% of the minority population by the end of the dynasty." Giocangga died in 1582 and was in Ming Dynasty. He was the ancestor of Qing Dynasty rulers. His lineage was spread by Qing Dynasty nobility. BTW, It is Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) not Qinq Dynasty."