I have been doing research for a few years now, and I have traced some of my genealogy back... way back. I have discovered some Royal European genealogy. Most people with this luck would find out that if they are related to some Ancient (pre-1500's) European royalty, there are related to almost all European royalty. Now basic research shows that these Kings, Dukes, Counts, etc. trace their genealogy way back as well. Some trace theirs back to the famous couple Adam and Eve. Now if you believe in the story of Adam and Eve, then this is where your genealogy ends. However, let's say that I don't believe in this story, then were does my genealogy turn from fact to legend? When do y'all think genealogy starts to become inaccurate? The 1500's (15 generations), 1500 years ago (40+ generations), 2000 years ago (75 generations), 2500+ (90 generations; you start getting biblical here), or when?
> I have been doing research for a few years now, and I have traced some of my > genealogy back... way back. I have discovered some Royal European > genealogy. Most people with this luck would find out that if they are > related to some Ancient (pre-1500's) European royalty, there are related to > almost all European royalty. Now basic research shows that these Kings, > Dukes, Counts, etc. trace their genealogy way back as well. Some trace > theirs back to the famous couple Adam and Eve. Now if you believe in the > story of Adam and Eve, then this is where your genealogy ends. However, > let's say that I don't believe in this story, then were does my genealogy > turn from fact to legend? When do y'all think genealogy starts to become > inaccurate? The 1500's (15 generations), 1500 years ago (40+ generations), > 2000 years ago (75 generations), 2500+ (90 generations; you start getting > biblical here), or when?
> Thanks in advance,
> Drew C.
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/2003
I always felt a closeness to Dinosaurs. :-) Only joking, but to hear some one, even from ancient times, traced their genealogy to Adam and Eve does not sound very accurate. For those of us that believe in Creationism vs. Evolutionism, they were the first parents ever. Albert
"Drew C." wrote: > I have been doing research for a few years now, and I have traced some of my > genealogy back... way back. I have discovered some Royal European > genealogy. Most people with this luck would find out that if they are > related to some Ancient (pre-1500's) European royalty, there are related to > almost all European royalty. Now basic research shows that these Kings, > Dukes, Counts, etc. trace their genealogy way back as well. Some trace > theirs back to the famous couple Adam and Eve. Now if you believe in the > story of Adam and Eve, then this is where your genealogy ends. However, > let's say that I don't believe in this story, then were does my genealogy > turn from fact to legend? When do y'all think genealogy starts to become > inaccurate? The 1500's (15 generations), 1500 years ago (40+ generations), > 2000 years ago (75 generations), 2500+ (90 generations; you start getting > biblical here), or when?
> When do y'all think genealogy starts to become > inaccurate? The 1500's (15 generations), 1500 years ago (40+ generations), > 2000 years ago (75 generations), 2500+ (90 generations; you start getting > biblical here), or when?
A lot depends on the country involved - some countries are better documented than others for all sorts of reasons including the fact that damp, negelct, poverty and warfare do nothing for the survival of records. People are sometimes very lucky, but in most cases people with families originating in the UK (for example) are doing very well if they get back to the 17th century with properly checked and documented research. We have all seen cases where people have attached their family to one of the richer ones (whose documents tend to survive better) because the names were the same, only to find later that the person they were claiming as an ancestor died in infancy, or had no children. I think that most of us are aware that one has to be careful with what one finds on the web, but this caution should also be extended to published (even old) material. For example, look at this describption of a book being offered by one of my faviourite booksellers (Benny Gillies http://www.bennygillies.co.uk/ ):
"KNOWLES, GEORGE PARKER A GENEALOGICAL AND HERALDIC ACCOUNT OF THE COULTHARTS OF COULTHART AND COLLYN. TO WHICH ARE ADDED THE PEDIGREE OF SEVEN OTHER CONSIDERABLE FAMILIES ETC. WITH A GENEALOGICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ROSSES OF DALTON IN THE COUNTY OF DUMFRIES. Printed for private circulation, London 1855. frontis coat of arms, plus other arms in text, large folding pedigree, the whole work printed on vellum, one of 75 copies printed. (An elaborate and expensive hoax: The seven other considerable families never existed. The man who had it published was of uncertain origin. The man who is believed to have been his grandfather was a half witted small farmer known locally in Kells as 'Laird Cowtart'. The place and castle of Coulthart never existed and the arms were borrowed from the Essex family of Colt and others.[See The Ancestor vol iv pps 61-80, Jan 1903]. "
Someone who looks an awful lot like Drew C. <dhc...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
> Now basic research shows that these Kings, > Dukes, Counts, etc. trace their genealogy way back as well.
Well, "very far" may differ from "very well", because:
> Some trace > theirs back to the famous couple Adam and Eve. Now if you believe in the > story of Adam and Eve, then this is where your genealogy ends. However, > let's say that I don't believe in this story, then were does my genealogy > turn from fact to legend?
It depends greatly on what part of the world, and how good the records are. Norway, for instance, has records back to at least the 14th century online which include probate records, land transactions, and similar. The data in them is solid - they're primary records, written at the time, and the only room for error is if you read the translations rather than the old Norse. Contrast this to another country where records weren't kept, or they were lost in war or natural disaster, and you may be lucky to find records older than, say, 1945.
> When do y'all think genealogy starts to become > inaccurate? The 1500's (15 generations), 1500 years ago (40+ generations), > 2000 years ago (75 generations), 2500+ (90 generations; you start getting > biblical here), or when?
It depends. I have one line that goes back through a bunch of vikings, back into the first Kings of Norway. Is it accurate? I don't know. Did the authors of the viking Sagas take liberties? Maybe. Is there any better evidence out there for those folks in that timeframe? Nope. So, it's in a separate database, not in my main GEDCOM, and if I print out my tree I don't include it. But, it's there, it's best-available evidence, and it's interesting to work on.
Which databases have you been using? Some of them have proven holes and false links (not the database's fault, some of those have been around for centuries, probably). Who are you looking for links on?
<dhc...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote: > I have been doing research for a few years now, and I have traced some of my > genealogy back... way back. I have discovered some Royal European > genealogy. Most people with this luck would find out that if they are > related to some Ancient (pre-1500's) European royalty, there are related to > almost all European royalty. Now basic research shows that these Kings, > Dukes, Counts, etc. trace their genealogy way back as well. Some trace > theirs back to the famous couple Adam and Eve. Now if you believe in the > story of Adam and Eve, then this is where your genealogy ends. However, > let's say that I don't believe in this story, then were does my genealogy > turn from fact to legend? When do y'all think genealogy starts to become > inaccurate? The 1500's (15 generations), 1500 years ago (40+ generations), > 2000 years ago (75 generations), 2500+ (90 generations; you start getting > biblical here), or when?
> Thanks in advance,
> Drew C.
My own personal belief is your geneaology turns mythical around the time it gets to the royalty section- especailly once it gets past the 1600's or so...
It has long been well establish that much of the royal families way back when had their family histories 'self generated' to make them appear more powerful, more royal, or more destined to rule. If I can prove to you I am a direct descendant from Adam and Eve, or from Erik the Red, then I am obviously destined to be your king!
Since there were no birth certificates, no attending physicians during birth (or even midwives), and most births were at home, there is little proof of anything. While there may have been some church records kept back then, relatively few documents would survive to this day.
Yes, I know, there are some surviving, and I am sure someone in here can verfiy the veracity of this, however, considering the number of ppl being born and dieing, there are only a small percentage of the records still around. The further you go back, the fewer records exist.
There is a perfect example of this today in fact. There are many surname boards all over the place. When checking some of my family surnames I find lots of family trees. There are soem ppl that think because they have the same last name, they are automatically closely related. I have seen a number of trees with my last names and as you go back past the 1800's, they have no first names for the ancestors- they just keep going back in time generation after generation using the last name only. That is not a true family tree, nor is it able to withstand scrutiny.
I found my grandfather on one of these trees and I contacted the poster of this tree asking how we are related. He could not tell me, but assured me we were related since all of us with the same last name are all related.
That was nonsense. Take that to the next level, and we are all related to Noah, or to Lucy, so the whole world is cousins. I do not think so.
I see you have lines back to Norway also. Where can I find Norway's online records? I have one branch of my tree going back to Villom Larsen b. Abt. 1760 Hidra, Norway m. Marte Tollaksdatter b. Abt. 1771 Norway. Albert
daveh...@spamcop.net wrote: > It depends greatly on what part of the world, and how good the records are. > Norway, for instance, has records back to at least the 14th century online > which include probate records, land transactions, and similar. The data > in them is solid - they're primary records, written at the time, and > the only room for error is if you read the translations rather than the > old Norse. Contrast this to another country where records weren't kept, > or they were lost in war or natural disaster, and you may be lucky to > find records older than, say, 1945. > It depends. I have one line that goes back through a bunch of vikings, back > into the first Kings of Norway. Is it accurate? I don't know. Did the > authors of the viking Sagas take liberties? Maybe. Is there any better > evidence out there for those folks in that timeframe? Nope. So, it's in > a separate database, not in my main GEDCOM, and if I print out my tree I > don't include it. But, it's there, it's best-available evidence, and it's > interesting to work on.
> Which databases have you been using? Some of them have proven holes and > false links (not the database's fault, some of those have been around for > centuries, probably). Who are you looking for links on?
I was not as lucky as you...My fathers side of the family is from the south I couldn't get any further then 1850 all records were burned in a fire. Plus I am from Indian decent from a family who never enrolled.
My mothers side of the family is a different story.. we are decedents of pirates...he he he !
> I have been doing research for a few years now, and I have traced some of my > genealogy back... way back. I have discovered some Royal European > genealogy. Most people with this luck would find out that if they are > related to some Ancient (pre-1500's) European royalty, there are related to > almost all European royalty. Now basic research shows that these Kings, > Dukes, Counts, etc. trace their genealogy way back as well. Some trace > theirs back to the famous couple Adam and Eve. Now if you believe in the > story of Adam and Eve, then this is where your genealogy ends. However, > let's say that I don't believe in this story, then were does my genealogy > turn from fact to legend? When do y'all think genealogy starts to become > inaccurate? The 1500's (15 generations), 1500 years ago (40+ generations), > 2000 years ago (75 generations), 2500+ (90 generations; you start getting > biblical here), or when?
Ghost gives below a reasoned - and, I think, a correct - approach to the "royalty" or "back to Adam" genealogical exercises.
Different people have different objectives. If you are determined to connect to a "royal line," it is really not that hard to do. The question is, when you do so, what do you have?
My response is, not a whole lot.
Genealogy has published standards of proof. You can find them on the Internet at the site of the Board for Certification of Genealogy and at the site for the National Genealogical Society. Without going into the nuances of these standards, the short of it is that once you reach a point where it is impossible to independently verity the records at hand, that is pretty much where genealogy ends and mythology begins.
When there are no original records to support the conclusions reached then the conclusions are not sustainable.
In days past - and perhaps even today - people placed great significance on being able to say they are descendants of Charlemagne (circa 1000 in Europe). When you look at the pedigree of an individual in a society such as this you will see it is full of first names and missing spouses (both husbands and wives) and devoid of any source citations beyond the work of some other person or group. In short, the proof is lacking.
The irony, however, is that if you look at the problem strictly in terms of mathematical probabilities, it can easily be demonstrated that any person with any Northern European ancestry is almost certainly a descendant of Charlemagne - not only that, but is likely a descendant of his through several of his many wives! This is true because when you go back 30 or 40 generations, the number of "slots" in a pedigree chart at the earliest generation is far greater than the number of people in the population available to fill those slots!
When I ponder "descendants of Charlemagne" my personal belief is that no one can really definitively establish - in terms of generally accepted genealogical standards - such a pedigree. This is true even though it is a mathematical certainty that the person is, indeed, descended from Charlemagne. Many times over.
As Ghost says below, after a while it is "silly."
Each person researching his ancestors needs to set some sort of an attainable goal. In my case, my goal is to try to identify all of my ancestors on this (the U.S.) side of the Big Pond. There is more to do here than I could ever accomplish - so why wander down unsustainable and largely mythical royal paths? Especially when your "research" is mostly a matter of copying what someone else has done.
The real thrill in genealogy is not in discovering an ancestor's name on a list of "royal descendants." As I said earlier - for most people that is relatively easy. The real thrill is in discovering an old deed or court record which gives the names of the parents of a great great grandfather's wife!
> My own personal belief is your geneaology turns mythical around the time > it gets to the royalty section- especailly once it gets past the 1600's or > so...
> It has long been well establish that much of the royal families way back > when had their family histories 'self generated' to make them appear > more powerful, more royal, or more destined to rule. If I can prove to > you I am a direct descendant from Adam and Eve, or from Erik the > Red, then I am obviously destined to be your king!
> Since there were no birth certificates, no attending physicians during > birth (or even midwives), and most births were at home, there is little > proof of anything. While there may have been some church records kept > back then, relatively few documents would survive to this day. > Yes, I know, there are some surviving, and I am sure someone in > here can verfiy the veracity of this, however, considering the number > of ppl being born and dieing, there are only a small percentage of > the records still around. The further you go back, the fewer records > exist.
> There is a perfect example of this today in fact. There are many surname > boards all over the place. When checking some of my family surnames I > find lots of family trees. There are soem ppl that think because they > have the same last name, they are automatically closely related. I have > seen a number of trees with my last names and as you go back past the > 1800's, they have no first names for the ancestors- they just keep going > back in time generation after generation using the last name only. That > is not a true family tree, nor is it able to withstand scrutiny.
> I found my grandfather on one of these trees and I contacted the poster of > this tree asking how we are related. He could not tell me, but assured me > we were related since all of us with the same last name are all related.
> That was nonsense. Take that to the next level, and we are all related to > Noah, or to Lucy, so the whole world is cousins. I do not
Someone who looks an awful lot like Albert R. Conklin <aconk...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> I see you have lines back to Norway also. Where can I find Norway's online > records? I have one branch of my tree going back to Villom Larsen b. Abt. 1760 > Hidra, Norway m. Marte Tollaksdatter b. Abt. 1771 Norway.
Hi, Albert.
For that time frame, you'd be best suited looking for them in the 1801 census. http://digitalarkivet.uib.no/cgi-win/WebFront.exe?slag=vis&tekst=meld... ...is a good place to start (watch the line wrap). I don't know where Hidra is off the top of my head, but the interface at the Norwegian Census site is pretty easy to use.
The older records, over 18,000 documents covering a period of, says here, the years 1050 until 1590, can be found online in the Diplomatarium Norvegicum, which can be found at: http://www.dokpro.uio.no/dipl_norv/diplom_felt.html (I don't know if there's an English-language version of this, ask if you need help).
soc.genealogy.nordic is a great resource that you might find useful, perhaps someone there will have more direct knowledge of that location. See you there, perhaps?
> > My mothers side of the family is a different story.. we are > decedents of > > pirates...he he he !
> Shouldn't that be "yo ho ho"? <g>
> Richard
Sounds like perpetuation of a stereotype. Didn't anyone else say "yo ho ho"? Or is it really an obligate characteristic of a pirate? When previously honest sea captains turned to piracy, was there a piracy board that had to rule on their ability to "yo ho ho" in the accepted manner?
A great deal of the genealogy back to Adam and Eve depends on the Bible. If you don't believe the Bible is fact, how can you use it as a source? Even if you do take the genealogy aspect of it at face value, how can you say it has any more validity than what we give (or *don't* give) to oral/family tradition today?
> Now if you believe in the >story of Adam and Eve, then this is where your genealogy ends. However, >let's say that I don't believe in this story, then were does my genealogy >turn from fact to legend?
> > > My mothers side of the family is a different story.. we are > > decedents of > > > pirates...he he he !
> > Shouldn't that be "yo ho ho"? <g>
> > Richard
> Sounds like perpetuation of a stereotype. Didn't anyone else say "yo ho > ho"? Or is it really an obligate characteristic of a pirate? When > previously honest sea captains turned to piracy, was there a piracy > board that had to rule on their ability to "yo ho ho" in the accepted > manner?
Only if they followed with the line "and a bottle of rum".......grin.
I trust you were kidding......as I am. However, seriously.......I have been in Henry Morgan's museum/residence in Port Royal, Jamaica......who later was Lt. Governor of the Island. His 'dishes' were the silver communion plate and cup from the small church there. And the place where one would expect a choir to be was made to look like the front of a ship. Or could have been one for all I know.
Interesting history......pirates, that is. And also in Jamaica is the place where Horatio Nelson allegedly 'walked' the quarterdeck. And many other pirates.
I found the following website and have seen most of these things, but it shows the silver communion plates, etc. And Giddy House.....and Lewis Galdy's interesting tombstone.......sort of a 'Jonah and the whale' inscription. He survived the 1692 earthquake which decimated Port Royal.
Thank you... I will have to check that address out....about the pirates , yes it is very true....My family on my mothers side originated from Portugal the family names linked are:
Ferria, Veverous, Fria, and DeoSilva. As far as we can tell they are all from the Island San Miguel.
> > > > My mothers side of the family is a different story.. we are > > > decedents of > > > > pirates...he he he !
> > > Shouldn't that be "yo ho ho"? <g>
> > > Richard
> > Sounds like perpetuation of a stereotype. Didn't anyone else say "yo > ho > > ho"? Or is it really an obligate characteristic of a pirate? When > > previously honest sea captains turned to piracy, was there a piracy > > board that had to rule on their ability to "yo ho ho" in the accepted > > manner?
> Only if they followed with the line "and a bottle of rum".......grin.
> I trust you were kidding......as I am. However, seriously.......I have > been in Henry Morgan's museum/residence in Port Royal, Jamaica......who > later was Lt. Governor of the Island. His 'dishes' were the silver > communion plate and cup from the small church there. And the place > where one would expect a choir to be was made to look like the front of > a ship. Or could have been one for all I know.
> Interesting history......pirates, that is. And also in Jamaica is the > place where Horatio Nelson allegedly 'walked' the quarterdeck. And many > other pirates.
> I found the following website and have seen most of these things, but it > shows the silver communion plates, etc. And Giddy House.....and Lewis > Galdy's interesting tombstone.......sort of a 'Jonah and the whale' > inscription. He survived the 1692 earthquake which decimated Port > Royal.
I guess I don't understand your point. "Pedigree collapse" is the basis for the "mathematical certainty." Pedigree collapse does not reduce the number of "slots," what is reduced is the number of people available to fill them. Remember also, of the many thousands in a 30 or 40 generation pedigree chart, only 1 person has to be a descendant of Charlemagne the theory to be reality. It's almost impossible for their to be none.
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:36:00 -0500, "Richard A. Pence" > <richardpe...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> >Ghost gives below a reasoned - and, I think, a correct - approach > >to the "royalty" or "back to Adam" genealogical exercises.
> Agreed.
> >The irony, however, is that if you look at the problem strictly > >in terms of mathematical probabilities, it can easily be > >demonstrated that any person with any Northern European ancestry > >is almost certainly a descendant of Charlemagne - not only that, > >but is likely a descendant of his through several of his many > >wives! This is true because when you go back 30 or 40 > >generations, the number of "slots" in a pedigree chart at the > >earliest generation is far greater than the number of people in > >the population available to fill those slots!
> Well, yeah, but it's fallacious to assume from the comparison of > "slots" to number of living people that someone alive today is "almost > certainly" descended from Charlemagne - a few well-placed instances of > pedigree collapse can really cut down the number of those "slots". > Mathematical probability in this instance does not accurately model > reality, because of the many factors not included (and very difficult > to include, I would think!) in the calculation.
> My own personal belief is your geneaology turns mythical around the time > it gets to the royalty section- especailly once it gets past the 1600's or > so...
The base date for English parish records -- the date when they were first required by law but do not always go back to -- is 1533. If a family had local standing, it can often be traced in probate and land records for decades prior to that date. In a number of cases, it can be traced a century or more before 1533. So it's not always that the available data don't support any kind of pre- 1600 pedigree. Read enough articles with titles that begin "The English Origin of ..." and you get the idea.
More often, before 1533 a point is reached at which kinships can only be proved by the passage of land tenure, so only those families that had tenure of significant land holdings can be traced. Many proved royal descents involve men of relatively undistinguished background who solidified their status by contracting a marriage with a woman of slightly superior rank. As Jacobus explains it: "It sometimes happened that a country gentleman somewhere up the line married a knight's daughter, and by going back on that line, perhaps one of the knights married an earl's daughter, and once we strike the peerage it is not difficult to acquire some sort of royal ancestry." (_Genealogy as Pastime and Profession_, rev. ed. [1968; reprint, Baltimore, 1999], 35) Again, this descent is frequently traceable to one of the early or middle Plantagenet kings of England, and on to Charlemagne through that connection.
> It has long been well establish that much of the royal families way back > when had their family histories 'self generated' to make them appear more > powerful, more royal, or more destined to rule. If I can prove to you I > am a direct descendant from Adam and Eve, or from Erik the Red, then I am > obviously destined to be your king!
Obviously the royals had an interest in such claims, but they also had an interest in making sure that their claims to heirship could stand, by force if not necessarily by law. They could not resort to venality *all* the time.
> Since there were no birth certificates, no attending physicians during > birth (or even midwives), and most births were at home, there is little > proof of anything. While there may have been some church records kept > back then, relatively few documents would survive to this day.
Translation: Few families of the era are subject to reconstruction from direct evidence. That is not necessarily a handicap, or a deterrent, to those prepared to consider indirect or circumstantial evidence.
> Yes, I know, there are some surviving, and I am sure someone in here can > verfiy the veracity of this, however, considering the number of ppl being > born and dieing, there are only a small percentage of the records still > around. The further you go back, the fewer records exist.
> There is a perfect example of this today in fact. There are many surname > boards all over the place. When checking some of my family surnames I > find lots of family trees. There are soem ppl that think because they > have the same last name, they are automatically closely related. I have > seen a number of trees with my last names and as you go back past the > 1800's, they have no first names for the ancestors- they just keep going > back in time generation after generation using the last name only. That > is not a true family tree, nor is it able to withstand scrutiny.
Common, yes. Unfortunate, certainly. Inherently connected with the "age" of a claimed descent, no.
> I found my grandfather on one of these trees and I contacted the poster of > this tree asking how we are related. He could not tell me, but assured me > we were related since all of us with the same last name are all related.
> That was nonsense. Take that to the next level, and we are all related to > Noah, or to Lucy, so the whole world is cousins. I do not think so.
To be fair, it sounds more like laziness and carelessness than absolute lack of kinship. I can understand doubting descent from Noah, or from the *particular specimen* of womanhood whom we call Lucy. But if postulating absolute lack of kinship just for lack of investigation is not ridiculous, then what is?
It is interesting. Plus a lot of 'conversos' came out to the West Indies. My last name is spanish, but there are a lot of portuguese names in Jamaica. Da Silva, Rodrigues, Da Costa and so on. There are some of the early Jewish records, as most of the portuguese were Jewish. As far as I can see, our Spanish line was catholic.......till great-grandfather 'decked the priest' and was excommunicated. That is more interesting than nobility to me.......but I have a crazy sense of the absurd. (G)
Have fun.......I happened to find it via Google just to check out when Horatio Nelson was on the Island.
Heather
"tj verhoef" <nos...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> Thank you... I will have to check that address out....about the pirates , > yes it is very true....My family on my mothers side originated from Portugal > the family names linked are:
> Ferria, Veverous, Fria, and DeoSilva. As far as we can tell they are all > from the Island San Miguel.
> > > > > My mothers side of the family is a different story.. we are > > > > decedents of > > > > > pirates...he he he !
> > > > Shouldn't that be "yo ho ho"? <g>
> > > > Richard
> > > Sounds like perpetuation of a stereotype. Didn't anyone else say "yo > > ho > > > ho"? Or is it really an obligate characteristic of a pirate? When > > > previously honest sea captains turned to piracy, was there a piracy > > > board that had to rule on their ability to "yo ho ho" in the accepted > > > manner?
> > Only if they followed with the line "and a bottle of rum".......grin.
> > I trust you were kidding......as I am. However, seriously.......I have > > been in Henry Morgan's museum/residence in Port Royal, Jamaica......who > > later was Lt. Governor of the Island. His 'dishes' were the silver > > communion plate and cup from the small church there. And the place > > where one would expect a choir to be was made to look like the front of > > a ship. Or could have been one for all I know.
> > Interesting history......pirates, that is. And also in Jamaica is the > > place where Horatio Nelson allegedly 'walked' the quarterdeck. And many > > other pirates.
> > I found the following website and have seen most of these things, but it > > shows the silver communion plates, etc. And Giddy House.....and Lewis > > Galdy's interesting tombstone.......sort of a 'Jonah and the whale' > > inscription. He survived the 1692 earthquake which decimated Port > > Royal.
Why Charlemagne? I personaly dont take much notice of medieval ancestry but i am curious why Charlemagne is mentioned so often. There are many prominent historical figures through the ages but this one is seemingly talked about much more than the others when it comes to medieval genealogy. Just curious.
> Ghost gives below a reasoned - and, I think, a correct - approach > to the "royalty" or "back to Adam" genealogical exercises.
> Different people have different objectives. If you are determined > to connect to a "royal line," it is really not that hard to do. > The question is, when you do so, what do you have?
> My response is, not a whole lot.
> Genealogy has published standards of proof. You can find them on > the Internet at the site of the Board for Certification of > Genealogy and at the site for the National Genealogical Society. > Without going into the nuances of these standards, the short of > it is that once you reach a point where it is impossible to > independently verity the records at hand, that is pretty much > where genealogy ends and mythology begins.
> When there are no original records to support the conclusions > reached then the conclusions are not sustainable.
> In days past - and perhaps even today - people placed great > significance on being able to say they are descendants of > Charlemagne (circa 1000 in Europe). When you look at the pedigree > of an individual in a society such as this you will see it is > full of first names and missing spouses (both husbands and wives) > and devoid of any source citations beyond the work of some other > person or group. In short, the proof is lacking.
> The irony, however, is that if you look at the problem strictly > in terms of mathematical probabilities, it can easily be > demonstrated that any person with any Northern European ancestry > is almost certainly a descendant of Charlemagne - not only that, > but is likely a descendant of his through several of his many > wives! This is true because when you go back 30 or 40 > generations, the number of "slots" in a pedigree chart at the > earliest generation is far greater than the number of people in > the population available to fill those slots!
> When I ponder "descendants of Charlemagne" my personal belief is > that no one can really definitively establish - in terms of > generally accepted genealogical standards - such a pedigree. This > is true even though it is a mathematical certainty that the > person is, indeed, descended from Charlemagne. Many times over.
> As Ghost says below, after a while it is "silly."
> Each person researching his ancestors needs to set some sort of > an attainable goal. In my case, my goal is to try to identify all > of my ancestors on this (the U.S.) side of the Big Pond. There is > more to do here than I could ever accomplish - so why wander down > unsustainable and largely mythical royal paths? Especially when > your "research" is mostly a matter of copying what someone else > has done.
> The real thrill in genealogy is not in discovering an ancestor's > name on a list of "royal descendants." As I said earlier - for > most people that is relatively easy. The real thrill is in > discovering an old deed or court record which gives the names of > the parents of a great great grandfather's wife!
> > My own personal belief is your geneaology turns mythical around > the time > > it gets to the royalty section- especailly once it gets past > the 1600's or > > so...
> > It has long been well establish that much of the royal families > way back > > when had their family histories 'self generated' to make them > appear > > more powerful, more royal, or more destined to rule. If I can > prove to > > you I am a direct descendant from Adam and Eve, or from Erik > the > > Red, then I am obviously destined to be your king!
> > Since there were no birth certificates, no attending physicians > during > > birth (or even midwives), and most births were at home, there > is little > > proof of anything. While there may have been some church > records kept > > back then, relatively few documents would survive to this day.
> > Yes, I know, there are some surviving, and I am sure someone in > > here can verfiy the veracity of this, however, considering the > number > > of ppl being born and dieing, there are only a small percentage > of > > the records still around. The further you go back, the fewer > records > > exist.
> > There is a perfect example of this today in fact. There are > many surname > > boards all over the place. When checking some of my family > surnames I > > find lots of family trees. There are soem ppl that think > because they > > have the same last name, they are automatically closely > related. I have > > seen a number of trees with my last names and as you go back > past the > > 1800's, they have no first names for the ancestors- they just > keep going > > back in time generation after generation using the last name > only. That > > is not a true family tree, nor is it able to withstand > scrutiny.
> > I found my grandfather on one of these trees and I contacted > the poster of > > this tree asking how we are related. He could not tell me, but > assured me > > we were related since all of us with the same last name are all > related.
> > That was nonsense. Take that to the next level, and we are all > related to > > Noah, or to Lucy, so the whole world is cousins. I do not > think so.
Why Charlemagne? Well, I guess because if you connect to him you are connected with most of the royal families of Europe. Most of them supposedly descended from him.
Richard
"sjw7" <swri...@dontSpamMe.rm.com> wrote in message
> Why Charlemagne? I personaly dont take much notice of medieval ancestry but > i am curious why Charlemagne is mentioned so often. There are many > prominent historical figures through the ages but this one is seemingly > talked about much more than the others when it comes to medieval genealogy. > Just curious.
> Cheers
> Simon Wright
> "Richard A. Pence" <richardpe...@pipeline.com> wrote in message > news:b4nunm$3tv$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net... > > Ghost gives below a reasoned - and, I think, a correct - approach > > to the "royalty" or "back to Adam" genealogical exercises.
> > Different people have different objectives. If you are determined > > to connect to a "royal line," it is really not that hard to do. > > The question is, when you do so, what do you have?
> > My response is, not a whole lot.
> > Genealogy has published standards of proof. You can find them on > > the Internet at the site of the Board for Certification of > > Genealogy and at the site for the National Genealogical Society. > > Without going into the nuances of these standards, the short of > > it is that once you reach a point where it is impossible to > > independently verity the records at hand, that is pretty much > > where genealogy ends and mythology begins.
> > When there are no original records to support the conclusions > > reached then the conclusions are not sustainable.
> > In days past - and perhaps even today - people placed great > > significance on being able to say they are descendants of > > Charlemagne (circa 1000 in Europe). When you look at the pedigree > > of an individual in a society such as this you will see it is > > full of first names and missing spouses (both husbands and wives) > > and devoid of any source citations beyond the work of some other > > person or group. In short, the proof is lacking.
> > The irony, however, is that if you look at the problem strictly > > in terms of mathematical probabilities, it can easily be > > demonstrated that any person with any Northern European ancestry > > is almost certainly a descendant of Charlemagne - not only that, > > but is likely a descendant of his through several of his many > > wives! This is true because when you go back 30 or 40 > > generations, the number of "slots" in a pedigree chart at the > > earliest generation is far greater than the number of people in > > the population available to fill those slots!
> > When I ponder "descendants of Charlemagne" my personal belief is > > that no one can really definitively establish - in terms of > > generally accepted genealogical standards - such a pedigree. This > > is true even though it is a mathematical certainty that the > > person is, indeed, descended from Charlemagne. Many times over.
> > As Ghost says below, after a while it is "silly."
> > Each person researching his ancestors needs to set some sort of > > an attainable goal. In my case, my goal is to try to identify all > > of my ancestors on this (the U.S.) side of the Big Pond. There is > > more to do here than I could ever accomplish - so why wander down > > unsustainable and largely mythical royal paths? Especially when > > your "research" is mostly a matter of copying what someone else > > has done.
> > The real thrill in genealogy is not in discovering an ancestor's > > name on a list of "royal descendants." As I said earlier - for > > most people that is relatively easy. The real thrill is in > > discovering an old deed or court record which gives the names of > > the parents of a great great grandfather's wife!
> > > My own personal belief is your geneaology turns mythical around > > the time > > > it gets to the royalty section- especailly once it gets past > > the 1600's or > > > so...
> > > It has long been well establish that much of the royal families > > way back > > > when had their family histories 'self generated' to make them > > appear > > > more powerful, more royal, or more destined to rule. If I can > > prove to > > > you I am a direct descendant from Adam and Eve, or from Erik > > the > > > Red, then I am obviously destined to be your king!
> > > Since there were no birth certificates, no attending physicians > > during > > > birth (or even midwives), and most births were at home, there > > is little > > > proof of anything. While there may have been some church > > records kept > > > back then, relatively few documents would survive to this day.
> > > Yes, I know, there are some surviving, and I am sure someone in > > > here can verfiy the veracity of this, however, considering the > > number > > > of ppl being born and dieing, there are only a small percentage > > of > > > the records still around. The further you go back, the fewer > > records > > > exist.
> > > There is a perfect example of this today in fact. There are > > many surname > > > boards all over the place. When checking some of my family > > surnames I > > > find lots of family trees. There are soem ppl that think > > because they > > > have the same last name, they are automatically closely > > related. I have > > > seen a number of trees with my last names and as you go back > > past the > > > 1800's, they have no first names for the ancestors- they just > > keep going > > > back in time generation after generation using the last name > > only. That > > > is not a true family tree, nor is it able to withstand > > scrutiny.
> > > I found my grandfather on one of these trees and I contacted > > the poster of > > > this tree asking how we are related. He could not tell me, but > > assured me > > > we were related since all of us with the same last name are all > > related.
> > > That was nonsense. Take that to the next level, and we are all > > related to > > > Noah, or to Lucy, so the whole world is cousins. I do not > > think so.
Why not? He was a pivotal figure in midieval history and most people know of him. The mathematical argument (http://www.oz.net/~lee/Genealogy/charlemagne.html) does not really depend on who the specific figure was. You could have chosen anyone from that time (around 800 AD). The only requirement is that the person you chose must not have died before parenting age.
I did an extrapolation of the argument to later years with the following results:
Where Y is the year, P is the approximate population of Europe, G is the approximate number of generations to that year and Z is the probablility that a given individual from that year is *not* one of your descendants. For Charlemagne, (around 800) that number is 10 to the minus 15900th power, or a decimal point, 15899 zeroes and a one. An extremely small number. For an individual in the year 1100, the probability is still 0.000000001 that he/she is not an ancestor. Not infinitesimal, but still fairly small. For the year 1200, the probability rises to almost 10%.
Surely you can find some figure from the period 800-1100 to whom you would like to be related.
Having said all that, I should note that this is far from being a rigorous mathematical proof. It is based on statistical arguments which do not really apply to human behaviour. However, the numbers are so extremely small that it's hard to say that the argument doesn't have any application.
Note that the mixing between the nobility and the commoners was small, but not negligible. Somewhere I saw a reference to the number of European nobility and in those times it was around 100,000 (sorry I don't have the reference at hand). If the number followed the general population figures it was probably within around a factor of two of all that over the 500 years described above, during which period a given noble would have had around 50,000-200,000 descendants (assuming 2-4 viable children per generation). From this it seems clear that people did descend from noble birth to common birth, so it would not be surprising that commoners would have royal ancestry.
Dwight Sipler <dsip...@haystack.mit.edu> aptly wrote in message >
> Why not? He was a pivotal figure in midieval history and most people > know of him. The mathematical argument > (http://www.oz.net/~lee/Genealogy/charlemagne.html) does not really > depend on who the specific figure was. You could have chosen anyone from > that time (around 800 AD). The only requirement is that the person you > chose must not have died before parenting age.
I enjoyed your analysis. I have observed the same facts in my own apparent genealogy for which I also have a roadmap all the way back to Charlemagne. I say roadmap, because of the quality and number of sources. It is hard to know for sure when many of the sources are based on saga and questionable sources. For now, it is my roadmap to prove or disprove.
BTW, I believe that Charlemagne is generally referenced as a pivotal person for royal lineages for a number of reasons: - Charlemagne was a unifier of kingdoms in northern Europe; the patrianch of the Carolingian kingdom, seeding German and French kings. He is attributed to the source of the Saxons who were instrumental in start of the Brittish kingdoms. - Christianity was the norm for kings after his rule, the dark ages of Europe preceeded him. - Medieval genealogists typically traced Charlemagne back to Adam. Their methods and sources are arguable, however, it was done. [I have a source book from the 1400's that I looked up at the Library of Congress for this obervation, but am too lazy at the moment to look up the title]. - most middle-age and later royals can trace their lines to him
> Note that the mixing between the nobility and the commoners was small, > but not negligible. Somewhere I saw a reference to the number of > European nobility and in those times it was around 100,000 (sorry I > don't have the reference at hand). If the number followed the general > population figures it was probably within around a factor of two of all > that over the 500 years described above, during which period a given > noble would have had around 50,000-200,000 descendants (assuming 2-4 > viable children per generation). From this it seems clear that people > did descend from noble birth to common birth, so it would not be > surprising that commoners would have royal ancestry.
I agree with this "macro" type of analysis of royality->commoner. I have many instances of this situation from a "micro" point of view. Many times in my apparent lineage, a king had multiple children. Early in the millenium (800-1100), the daughters were typically to be used as tools of treaty by marrying others kings while sons inherited the kingdom/split the kingdom/or killed ech other over the kingdom. After a time, it appears that younger sons and daughters became or married Earls, Dukes, "Greves", etc.; a lesser title. The sons and daughters of these folk also inherited their land/title but the younger ones may step down in title and become a sheriff/Lagsmann/jurist/Lensmann or such title. The many children of a sheriff may end up being a wealthy farmer or such.
>Sounds like perpetuation of a stereotype. Didn't anyone else say "yo ho >ho"? Or is it really an obligate characteristic of a pirate? When >previously honest sea captains turned to piracy, was there a piracy >board that had to rule on their ability to "yo ho ho" in the accepted >manner?
> >Sounds like perpetuation of a stereotype. Didn't anyone else say "yo ho > >ho"? Or is it really an obligate characteristic of a pirate? When > >previously honest sea captains turned to piracy, was there a piracy > >board that had to rule on their ability to "yo ho ho" in the accepted > >manner?
> I hope that comment was tongue in cheek!
> Anna
Actually it's quite hard to say "Yo ho ho" with your tongue in your cheek!
