> There never would have been enough nobles for their failsons to have any kind of measurable genetic impact on the wider society; I'm not sure if this is true

> There never would have been enough nobles for their failsons to have any kind of measurable genetic impact on the wider society; I'm not sure if this is true - I seem to recall studies that can clearly see a genetic impact of just a single particular noble (Gengis Khan), so it seems plausible that the genetic impact of nobles would be oversized as high-status males can have many children from the society in which they have violent power, and their children (even if bastards) have less issues with childhood malnutrition and early death.