FidoNet Echomail Archive

<<< Previous Index Next >>>

From: Stephen Hayes
To: All
Date: 2003-03-19 06:48:22
Subject: Re: Oldest Genealogy?

* Forwarded (from: GENEALOGY_FMY) by Stephen Hayes using timEd/2 1.10.y2k.
* Originally from Ken (8:8/2002) to All.
* Original dated: Fri Mar 14, 17:04

From: ken.larson{at} (Ken)

Dwight Sipler <dsipler{at}> aptly wrote in message > 
> Why not? He was a pivotal figure in midieval history and most people
> know of him. The mathematical argument
> ( 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.

Check for
an interesting set of lineges from Charlemagne.

My point is that the depreciation of the title becomes clear as you
look through such a genealogy.

___ NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
 - Origin: (8:8/2002) 

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
 * Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (5:7106/20)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 7106/20 22 7102/1 140/1 106/2000 633/267

<<< Previous Index Next >>>