Harald III Hardråde is your 28th great grandfather.

Started by Aimee C. Speidel von Ofterdingen on Friday, November 11, 2011
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 31-54 of 54 posts

As far as The norse "god" Odin is concerned, Thor Heyerdal meant he had evidence of him being a real life person, he is said to originate from the area around the Black Sea. Heyerdal also thinks he got his staus as "god" after his death, due to his capabilities(intelligence), he invented the futark, which was the alphabet of the vikings.

Direct grandparent lineage is not that dilutive in a world of 7bn people. The most complex pool of genes our branch of the family has
comes from Isabel Kennedy of Bargany a few hundred years ago, she only has about 900 descendents.... conspiracy theorists could have a field day with the crusader and templar ancestor names alone! personally, now I know why I get put in leadership positions whether I like it or not, as per most of my close family too! :0)

Thor Heyerdalh's Odin project did not get any recognition in the academic-scientific society. Through excavactions they found traces of a population in the region of the mentioned Æsir-tribe around the time 60 B.C. near the Black Sea. They also found some similarities in linguistics and names, but scientists have never recognized it as more than coincidents.

Having a theory is good and well, but going to the length of saying that one is for certain a decendent of Odin is taking it too far. There has never been evidence of the physical existence of Odin the God.

That's interesting Peter. I believe genes play a bigger part of shaping our personality than sociology, but I wonder how far back we must go before it is significant or if some genes survives better than others, i.e. if they have strong characteristics that deviates very much from a norm.

If my math skills are not too far off, I have calculated that I have over 1.5 million 18th great grandparents. We know everyone has 2 parents, so for every line of generation the increment doubles itself, and the further we come the less significant the genetical impact of course. That means i.e. that I have 1/1.5 millionth of that ancestors genes, but whether or not that is significant or not is not my field. All I know, is that those other 1.499 999 mill's genes have something to say too :-)

Private User - Correct, - the maths tells that you have 1,048,576 (1,05 millions) 18th great grandparents and if you go further back you have 549,755,813,888 (549,76 billions) 37th great grandparents just 1000 years ago.

Does some alarm clocks ring?
What is wrong with that number even if the maths are correct?

With "just" 7 billions people on earth today it is impossible so it is time to learn about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse

Remember Geni's slogan: We are all related.

The use of the word "tree" when describing a persons ancestor line is very misleading when you look at population growth through history.

If you chop down the tree and put it upside-down you get a better picture. At the bottom you have billions of leafs and the further up you go you get thicker and thicker stems showing that the further back you get the more common ancestors you have and everything is interconnected with wines describing the fact of remote relatives get children together.

Good point Bjørn. The branches certainly does not go in a straight line.

Since this discussion is about royalties, we know that it was very common to marry close relatives in the royal family, and that doesn't make the branches any less complicated.

I think I would describe the tree as looking more like a pear, where we are at the bottom where it quickly grows wider as we go backwards and upwards, but where it over time will get thinner, simply because of the fact that population has grown in time.

To delude even more philosophically, which branch and tree is our pear hanging on, and where is this tree growing?

I think we should leave those questions hypothetical for this discussion :-)

Personally it's interesting to figure out how many living relatives exist and where (diasporas etc).... we're all unique, but very similar ingredients at the same time.... i.e. how unique is it today to be descended from Mark Anthony, Xerxes, Octavian, Constantine the Great, Charlemagne, Alfred The Great, William the Conqueror, and Robert the Bruce?

As well as the vikings etc.... put the Odin's, Ares and Zuess lines aside because am not sure how accurate that can be.

I think that also it is about dominant genes, there are very strong commonalities in appearance, fundamental basic IQ/EQ intelligence, leadership positions held (I am a director at one of the largest banks in the world, my father a CEO, grandfathers who were military leaders etc) that are common among my 11 first cousins on that side, all coming from the one line that we commonly share.... three quarters if my cousins hold senior roles or own/founded companies etc

I am no researcher on genealogy or sociology, but I am fascinated by the relationship between the two. How much influence does one have on the other? I think genealogy is underrated, and on the other hand, I think people put too much emphasis on sociology. There are a great variety of characteristics of humans that are inherited, and I can try to paint a picture of how I view this relationship:

You can put make-up on, do your hair, and buy new clothes, but everyone will always recognize you as yourself. There is very little we can do to change how we look on the outside. I feel it is the same on the inside, where most of our characteristics are decided from birth and very little can influence us in shaping our personality and mind. Sadly, too many parents try a little too hard, thinking they can make their baby become what they want them to.

Hence, I don't think it's entirely a coincidence in Peters case. However, I would not underestimate the power of expectations growing up in a wealthy family with high standards. In these cases, some people probably have to go against their own will in searching out their path. Which again, proves the influence of genealogy.

@ Peter Thomson. I think you make a very good point. I do have lots of royalty in my family, but I dont have a leading position in those areas that you write about in your post. However; I always noticed that Im thinking differently from others, even from early childhood. My iq is high, and I was of course bullied a lot for it, even by teachers. Other kids would always try to beat me up on a daily basis, but I always won the fights, they stopped simply because they feared injuries I guess.
Today Im 44 years old, independent, and succeeding in my area, Ive been places and done things most people can only dream about.
So there must be something in the genes that makes me a winner, I have no other explanation. Most other people who go through what I have commit suicide. But I never concidered that, I always planned to be successful and make them eat dirt instead.

It's interesting because there was much misery in the royal lines with respect to IQ, mental state, health. Perhaps an idea to go deeper than only beIng blinded by titles.There was also the risk of having delusions of grandeur, which is human characteristic for some, if the chance is there. When it went really wrong haemophilia occurred. Inbreeding was a problem. Several kings and immediate family has been insane. Their personal story were not successful. One must be happy, blood has been diluted several times from people not close related to royal lines.

I agree about the inbreeding, haemophilia, mishapen chins etc, but it is interesting that it mainly exists in the Habsburgs and the Hanoverian royal lines "Johanna The Mad", the Habsburg Chin etc.

I think it's more a question of whether the child is brought up in a family of leaders, each generation raised and therefore taught how to lead because you see Dad do it and all their friends too.

Many of the nastier events in history seem to be preceded by badly treating the heirs, just plain regicide, or really bad regents.... Or syphilis drove them
nuts in the end.

I have Habsburg in my lines as well. Where can I see that chin you talk about?

Not sure I'd be too happy as a king known in history as "Hogmouth"! That would suck....

Harald III Sigurdsson «Hard ruler» Hardråde is your 27th great grandfather.

Seems like we are all related... but, how accurate is this?
People says that data from (at least) before the big plague "needs to be taken with a huge shovel of salt" (norwegian expression)

Harald III "Hard ruler", king of Norway is your 33rd great uncle.

Harald III "Hard ruler", king of Norway is your 33rd great uncle.
You
→ Joanne Ellen Pappas (Premus)
your mother → show 33 relatives → Åsta Gudbrandsdóttir, Queen of Norway
his mother → Harald III "Hard ruler", king of Norway
her son

Harald III "Hard ruler", king of Norway is my 25th great grandfather.

katherine Myhre
11/16/2011 at 5:21 AM

"Thor Heyerdahl is your 13th cousin five times removed.". He was born in Vestfold. Almost all the famous Vikings from Vestfold are related to me. I thought I would be related to Thor Heyerdahl. I loved his book.

Harald III "Hard ruler", king of Norway is your 23rd great grandfather.

I am very proud to know that !

Shortest BLOOD relationship: Harald III "Hard ruler", king of Norway is your 32nd great UNCLE.
Shortest IN-LAW relationship: Harald III "Hard ruler", king of Norway is your 28th great UNCLE.

Shortest BLOOD relationship: Harald III "Hardrada" King of Norway. is your 30th great uncle.
Shortest IN-LAW relationship: Harald III "Hardrada" King of Norway. is your 27th great uncle.

Showing 31-54 of 54 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion