Presidents of the United States

The American upper middle and upper classes of WASP ancestry seem to be extremely well-connected to the British Royal families, as anybody who studied the British middle tthrough upper classes would expect. I wonder if they and their counterparts in the five Dominions (Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) might not even be better connected than the British, seeing as many of the earliest emigrants to the colonies seem to have been top heavy in younger sons of the gentry and upper classes seeking farmland and a living that increasingly became impossible for aristocrats and gentry in the UK as the colonies outproduced the Mother Countries in agrarian products such as wheat, cattle, and fruit.

On the other hand, I wonder if this could be merely a matter of perspective: it is always easier to trace the ancestry of the well-to-do with the leisure and the taste for genealogy. As you go back in time you lose the poor (except for criminal records and charity records) and then the middle classes and gradually even the aristocracy and royalty are replaced by saints, culture heroes, and barbarian chieftains of various tribes. There's a lot of factors that bias our data from the Genghis Khan effect through the Founder effect and various kinds of data-collecting bias.

Brant, I think I read another discussion on geni recently that made the point that it is harder to go genealogically from 1750 to 1600 in the UK than in the US because records back to the first immigrants are well preserved here. (The same is true of French immigrants to Canada, several of them well documented back to royalty.) If everyone has royal ancestors, and they do, it's only because our poor ancestors are lost in the mists of time. Peter Maurin, the Catholic Worker activist, claimed that he was born in Provence on a farm that his family had occupied for 1500 years. I can't imagine that such records exist: how could he know that?

I think that the family lines for royalty and nobility are easy to trace probably because of the rules and laws regarding succession and inheritance in Medieval times. People back then kept very careful records regarding blood lines to ensure proper transfer of titles and lands after death. If you were a peasant, however, and owned no lands to transfer, you probably could not even read or write, let alone record accurately anything related to your blood line . This opinion and guestimate is just based on my knowledge of history and culture in the Middle Ages in Europe.

Mr. Father Jerome, in some cases in history, there are even Older Records... THE Recordings alone of the Religious Scholars and Scribes of Ancient times, are proof enough of this.
And it is possible, that maps of the Middle Ages, (likely hold up in some hall of records/arms, museum or the like.), actually had their lands, drawn on it.
Then, there are the rarer and lucky cases of family heirlooms being passed down over centuries and yes, even thousands of years. The First Family Religious Book: Torah, Coran, Bible, Legends, given down through first sons or for lacking thereof, the "last heirs standing", often held generations of personal family Handwritten records of marriages, births and deaths. And those who were from a long line of Religious representatives, may have been lucky enough to have access to every birth/marriage/death record of their immediate family, for endless generations. (Not so impossible or primitive, after all.) .
;-)

Anne, as mentioned above, the various Religious Institutions kept records, on the "Flock". Of course, you are absolutely right about the well kept "records vital to succession" and "Land/Goods/Monies- Transfers". and there are even many possibilities to locate scraps and bits throughout a persons lifetime, back then, even if they likely were illiterate and poor. More possibilities for locating records of the poor and illiterate are: Court records: disputes, fines, etc. Prison/Jail records and Cemetery Records & in cemeteries themselves ,as well as, possibly locating them as a loyal servant or outstanding mensch, located as "mentioned in the Kings Court as a lunatic/hero/Impressive Persuader/hieratic" or "mentioned as the chambermaid, mistress, nanny, slave" or whatever . Not near as much documented information(not to mention, the Royals and upper crust possessing better chances of having good places to keep such records from just turning into dust on the shelves. Meaning, their records were often well guarded and well preserved). as in the case of the Ruling class, but at least not always, just nothing.
;-)

With all due respect, Renee, what you write is called speculation, or logical conclusions built upon a set of premises. (You mention "possible" maps in some hall of records that no one has ever used for research.) It would be more relevant if you cited just one genealogical line based on such records. You mention the Bible: in 1654 the Anglican Archbishop James Ussher of Dublin calculated the genealogies found in the Old Testament back to Adam and "proved" that the world was created in 4004 B.C. (Sunday, October 23 at 9:00 a.m., if memory serves). Some fundamentalists still maintain that this is the literal truth, even though Jericho has been inhabited for at least 8,000 years. Native Americans have their own tribal history, and some of them are offended by the contradictory evidence that all Native Americans sprang from the tribes that crossed over from Siberia about 13,000 years ago. As for record-keeping, not many parish records can be found in Germany before 1648, following the devastation of the Thirty Years' War. That is to say, records that were kept do not survive. Can you expect to find baptismal records in Tunisia from the time of St. Augustine, before the Vandals and then the Arabs overran the land and wiped out every trace of Christianity? I cannot find anything for my ancestors in Ireland as far back as the beginning of the 19c. As for fragmentary mentions in court records, the solitary citation of an individual can hardly be used to construct a genealogical list. Anne is quite correct about the reasons for royal and noble genealogies. But read Marie Tanner's "The Last Descendant of Aeneas" to see how assiduously the Hapsburgs constructed their family history to go back to the Roman emperors, the Trojans, the kings of Judea, Greek gods, all the way back to Adam. It is common knowledge that courtiers did this to enhance the prestige of their rulers. Emperor Maximilian I, having thus established his claim to be the heir of every temporal sovereignty, proposed to be elected pope in succession to Julius II, thus uniting all spiritual and temporal rule. (It didn't happen.)

In turn, and also, with all due respect, Yes and of course, you are right... Which is why I add... "Might get lucky" and want speaking for every line, in thinkable human history, including all mass speculation as 100% verification... But if one is lucky, one being any researcher or archeologist... You might be able find a mummy and extract, the DNA and dertmine, who a queen of Egypt was... (Nat. Geographic- Hatschepsut, daughter of Tut Moses I. Wife of half brother Tut Moses II and pharaoh of Egypt.)

I wasn't saying, the chances were immense or even highly likely, but that there is, in some exceptions, a that chance.

Harald, I found a closer line. Christoffer II king of Denmark is Walter Mondale's 18th ggf.

There are several problems with Walter Mondales line back to Harald Haarfagre as presented by Harald http://www.geni.com/discussions/137615?msg=961009

The first problem is this one: Borghild Amundsdatter Stumpe There are no good Sources that confirms her marriage to Berdor Bolt. Berdor Bolts wife is really unknown.

Another problem is that there are big doubts that Harald Haarfagre had children with Svanhild Eysteinsdotter at all.

If it might be useful, my Common 1st Cousin Pyramid with Walter Mondale is

→ Kong Magnus Lagabøter, Konge av Norge
her father and Walter Mondale’s first cousin 19 times removed and your 24th great grandfather
(Ingeborg Eriksdatter af Danmark, Dronning av Norge
and Walter Mondale’s first cousin 19 times removed's wife and your 24th great grandmother)

→ Margret Skuladotter
his mother and Walter Mondale’s 19th great aunt and your 25th great grandmother
(Håkon IV Håkonsson, Konge av Norge, "Håkon den Gamle”,
and Walter Mondale’s 19th great uncle and your 25th great grandfather)

Minimum Common Great Grandparents of Walter “Fritz” Mondale (19th) and Floyd Bliss Hanson (26th)
are Hertug Skule Bårdsson and Ragnhild Jonsdatter,
parents of siblings Margret Skuladotter and Prinsesse Ragnhild Skulesdatter, av Rein, of Rein;
Margaret (Hulins) Bliss, a known William the Conqueror descendent, is the Branch from the Bliss Line.

→ Prinsesse Ragnhild Skulesdatter, av Rein, of Rein
her sister and Walter Mondale’s 18th great grandmother and your 19th great aunt

→ Amund Munansen Stumpe
her son and Walter Mondale’s 17th great grandfather and your first cousin 26 times removed.

Konge Magnus and Konge Hakon iV are great grandfathers on my side.

Regards,
Floyd Bliss Hanson

Remi Trygve Pedersen the problem with Borghild is something I can't speak to, not having tried to check sources (and there are none listed).

But with Harald Hårfagre and Svanhild, is there any particular reason to doubt his children with her any more than one should doubt anything that's written in that saga? The particular lines in the saga are quoted (in Swedish!) in the profile, and seem very hard to interpret other than Snorre wanting to say that these children were Harald and Svanhild's.

I understand that you're skeptical of a lot of things, but I'd like to understand why this particular link deserves more skepticism than other pieces of the same saga.

In general Snorre's saga is unreliable when it comes to his genealogies more than 200-300 before he wrote them.

In "Historisk Tidsskrift", bind 68, nr. 3 (1989), pages 288-302, Claus Krag has an article called "Norge som odel i Harald Hårfagres ætt : et møte med en gjenganger". In that article he states that there are doubts about Harald having a relationship with Gyda Eiriksdatter, Åsa Håkonsdatter, Svanhild Eysteinsdotter and Snøfrid Svåsesdotter

And I do believe more in what Claus Krag writes than I do in what Snorre writes. Claus Krag is also the one that wrote the critical book about king Sverre. Claus Krag is an expert in old norse philology and a professor in old norse and medeival history, so I think he knows what he's talking about.

Always the same problem -- reasonable doubt but no definitive evidence.

No full online copy, I think; the summary in English is here: http://www.rhd.uit.no/ht/ht68.html#2543 - I've added it to my list of "must look up this article next time I'm at the library".

In my book reasonable doubt is enough to cut a line, and mention it in the About me instead, but that's me, and most of you know my attitude towards these unproven links.

It's allways harder to prove that something isn't a fact then proving that it is a fact! And I believe that the burden of proof, and finding the evidence, belongs to the one claiming a relationship between 2 persons, not the one that think the relationship is doubtful or wrong.

Harald, I haven't read the article either, so if you find it, could you pleas summarize.

Yay! Finally, a Pres. John Tyler path!

John Tyler, 10th President of the USA is Theresa Renée Eléna Delgado-Tossas' 16th cousin 7 times removed!

Me → Linda Sue Cox my mother → Gladys Mae Lockwood Tyler (Kelley) her mother → Vivian Lucille Kelley/Payne/alias- Smith (Cromer)
her mother → Floyd Francis Cromer her father → Elizabeth Ann Cromer (Grosvenor) his mother → Araminta Margaret Grosvenor (Whitney) Houser her mother → Francis Tufts Whitney her father → Joseph Whitney his father → Mercy Whitney (Hinckley) his mother → Thankful Hinckley (Atwood) her mother → Eleazer Atwood her father → Stephen Joseph Atwood, Jr. his father → Stephen Atwood his father → John "Younger" Johannes Atwood his father → Nicholas Atwood his father → John Hewson Atwood his father → John Atwood his father → Isabel Attewode (de Mules) his mother → Margaret Upton (Mulys) her mother → John de Moels, III her father → Joan de Moels (Lovel) his mother → Muriel Lovel (de Soulis) her mother → Hawise Stewart her mother → John Stewart of Bonkyl and Garlies her brother → Isabel Stewart of Bonkyl his daughter → "Black Agnes" Randolph, Countess of Dunbar and March her daughter → Agnes Dunbar her daughter → Janet Douglas of Dalkeith her daughter → David Hamilton her son → Sir John, 1st Baron of Dalserf Hamilton his son → Sir Robert Sr baron of Dalserf Hamilton his son → Ellin Hamilton his daughter → Robert Ellyson of Newcastle her son → Robert Ellison (Allison) (Allison/Ellyson/Ellis... his son → Hannah Armistead (Ellyson) his daughter → Robert Armistead her son → Ellyson Armistead, Capt. his son → Robert Booth Armistead his son → → Mary Marot Tyler (Armistead) his daughter → John Tyler, 10th President of the USA her son

http://www.geni.com/path/Theresa-Ren%C3%A9e-El%C3%A9na-Delgado-Toss...

Is also, The farthest relationship, I have to the US Presidents.
All the others are from 3rd to 15th cousins.

And there is of course, still the lingering question of who his great grandmother was. But since, my line goes through his mother... this would not affect it.

Remi, in this case you have the burden of proof backwards. The only evidence says X. The burden of proof is on the person contesting it. And, while you may have reasonable doubt about the arguments, that doesn't mean it's not reasonable for someone else to believe otherwise.

Then, Justin, may I ask where is the evidence?

The saga is the source. The only thing we have. Or maybe I misunderstand the question -- it doesn't seem like such a hard concept.

I suppose you might ask what the source was for the saga. The answer is almost certainly oral tradition. The sagas were recorded during the transition from an oral cultural to a written culture.

There is no academic doubt that oral cultures can preserve information for hundreds of years, particularly, as with Norse poetry, it is preserved in the form of a poem or song with a highly structured meter.

There is also no academic doubt that oral traditions can become corrupted during the transition to a written culture.

And therein lies the argument. Was Saga X corrupted or not? Sometimes it's possible to venture an opinion by comparing it to the genealogies in other sagas. More often not.

I know the saga is the source, but the saga is far from any evidence genealogically. I agree with you that the poems (kvad) by the skalds are more or less trustworthy, but the historic novels made by Snorre and other writers of that time, taken from oral tradition that has survived several hundred years "without changing anything" is another story!

So since the story in Saga X can't be seen upon as evidence because of lack of trustworthyness, it's basicly useless as genealogical evidence of a relationship between 2 persons. That is also why I think these stories doesn't belong in a genealogical work but instead mentioned as doubtful possibilities with Saga X as the source to the story.

Remi Trygve Pedersen we should write up this discussion as a Wiki page, and every time we come to this point, we should just post the link to the page. We've been over it enough times, in enough threads, to know it by heart now.

Good idea, Harald. I think Remi already knows my answer -- the judgement is highly subjective and no amount of discussion will get around subjectivity ;)

I think that when Remi sums up such a controverted and complicated question as "basically [sic] useless," he subverts all effort at discussion. He has settled the question for everyone all by himself.

President Tyler, anyone? ;-)

Then, Jerome, I think you should look up the criteria for a genealogical evidence. To me that is only a primary source, and there is almost nothing primary about most of the sagas.

My error, Remi, I thought Vice-President Mondale's ancestor King Hakon IV (13th century) was historical, not dependent on a saga. You certainly have a better grasp of Scandinavian history than I. Queen Margaret (1353-1412) is less than a century later, and she is certainly historical, so I didn't look any deeper.

Jerome, I am not talking about king Haakon IV, whose history was written by the request of his son Magnus VI. I'm talking about king Harald Haarfagre (ca. 850 - ca. 931) whose saga was written around 1220, almost 300 years after his death.

But, Remi, Harald has shown that Haakon IV is Walter Mondale's 22nd ggf. That was the subject of discussion. No need to go back to the sagas to establish his royal ancestry. In any case, I found the Danish king Christoffer II to be his 18th ggf.