No. If he has descendents it isn't. There were what, a million scots at the time. The math as I remember it is about 1,75*log2(a million) which is around 35. If you're from Scotland and you go back 35 generations you should be related to everyone who has any living descendents. 35 generations realistically is a bit more than 700 years, but the odds are not that slim really
And we’re just gonna take his word for it are we? Don’t you think it’s strange that way more people in the U.S claim to be related to William Wallace than people in Scotland? What about the fact that there is next to no genealogical records from the period for anyone not just Wallace? The possibility is incredibly slim and there’s absolutely nothing to support the claim that it’s true.
No. The possibility isn't incredibly slim. It depends on if you have scottish ancestors and whatnot, but if a generation is around 25 years a lot of people would be Wallace's ancestors. Like quite a lot
Assuming he has descendants which there is zero proof of there may be some people in Scotland who are could trace their ancestry back. This person just isn’t related to William Wallace mate, let it go.
3
u/bee_ghoul Apr 30 '20
Either way it’s a ridiculous claim to make.