King David / דוד המלך - King David

a impressive genealogy three, isn 't it?

I was stunned to see the lineage and am hopeful that it is accurate. At this website, we are dependent on others to be accurate in the recording of family members.

As David was a king, and like all other kings (and queens), I believe that there were courtesans who kept records of the royal family tree in order to keep the blood royal. For the few remaining royal families of today, I don't think that this is as important as it was in the past. So records were kept and somehow preserved by historians.

For the brick maker of bricks for the Coliseum in Rome who couldn't read or write, we don't know his name or family information. But we have his bricks and a beautiful structure for which we view in awe.

Your thoughts?

King David is my 92nd great grandfather

King David is my 90th Greatgrandfather and the Queen Mothers 88th grandfather. There is no to path to Queen Elizabeth 11 ? but she is my 17th cousin.
So I will be the next pretender for either the throne of Britain or Israel

John Patrick McCaffrey You are absolutely right, imagine the astounding information genealogical records of King Solomon's seven hundred wives of royal birth, and his three hundred concubines would provide? See: 1 Kings, Chapter 11.

YES, but it would be nearly impossible to know if this lineage is correct , since i have experienced that lineages have been changed after a while. Anyway, i am related directly to more than 35 Scandinavian kings and Viking Kings. Including Charlemagne, the father of alexander the great and Julius Ceasar. Including 15 jewish kings BC, and including Herod the Great. I don't belive all This can be coincident and broken links, but whats right i don't know!

If this is correct then King David is my 93 Great Grandfather through Absalom.

Well, it is about 90 generations or more, back to king David.

John Patrick McCaffrey, records haven't been kept. That's the problem with Geni - and of course, records of this age would have been destroyed in wars and natural disasters, even if there had been any. Some on Geni use the bible as an accurate historical record.
Not only that, much more recent royal families changed their lineages to suit the political trends, and more importantly for them, to suit their challenges to thrones, whether through lineage or through land grabs.
Still, it's fun - it's the only way to look at Geni. I don't consider any of it accurate, except what I've seen with paper trails - not including the obvious made up ones of course. And that includes some of my own, which is why I always put a disclaimer in notes for the questionable lines.

I Think bible records are accurate records, but some names are probably misinterpret

Jan Fredrik Fallsen and what criterias are you using to state that the bible is an accurate record of the stories it is depicting? When answering, please have in mind what the difference is between primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

Remi Trygve, that's a question of faith, a lot of the old testament is a recount of what is actually have happened and written down by the bible authors, and of course secondary sources was a foundation for much of this recount. Jewish sources have always been very accurate. The bible authors wrote down the stories during the Babylonian exile about 597 BC, if I remember correctly. But of course these sources and even authors was also humans, and it can be difficult to know what's correct, that's where bible archaeology comes in to play.

you are speaking of my grand dad. I used to sit on his lab playing with his crown

Jan Fredrik, faith shouldn't be mixed together with genealogy since genealogy is factbased, and being that makes it opposite to faith.

Most Biblical scholars believe that the historical books we have now were redacted from various older manuscripts and traditions. It's not a question of whether it is accurate or inaccurate as a whole, but whether the individual pieces are accurate.

Hello Remi, I will not contradict you, you are of cource right, in genealogy we always need fact, and faith cannot replace real knowledge.

Yes of cource Justin, that's what i actually meant

Good, Jan Fredrik Fallsen, then we understand each other and are in agreement.

Remi Trygve Pedersen

Not specific to this profile but generally what is genealogists stance regarding auto-biographies and testimonies?

If uncle Joe says he got married in Albania but his passport shows he was in Paris on the day which takes precedence?
Or if great grand dad John's journal says he has 4 sons but census shows 3, who is right? Surely John knows how many kids he had!?

I am prompted to ask by an actual scenario where a woman in her 80s made a statement about her experiences in her 20s which seem to contradict historical records.

Not looking for a specific answer to that issue just a general idea of how much weight is given to people's own accounts of their lives. Does my own profile on Geni count as a primary source or a secondary - i can assure you that i know my Current Location but as i have never up loaded any evidence into Geni to prove it...?

Those are allways difficult problems to solve, Alex.

Uncle Joe: I would try to find other sources that could help either way. The more sources, the better the judgement is going to be.

Grandad John: I would trust him and not the census, because the census is not a primary source for that specific information.

Woman in her 80s: I would probably trust the records, at least if they are primary sources.

In each of these three examples you need to assess the mental capacity of the person, dementia?, you also need to assess the trustworthyness of the written source(s).

If a person has his/her mental faculties in order, and they have experienced the event they are telling you about, I would most of the time trust their word, but I would take into concideration how long time ago it happened, and if in any doubt, I would try to find collaborative sources, either written or other persons that were attending the same event.

Does your own account count as a primary source? Most of the time I would say yes, but there are some events in your life that you were present at, but probably can't remember yourself! Like your birth, your baptism (if you have one and it happened during the first year you lived), and other events you can't remember and that other persons have told you or written down.

I haven't shown any evidence of my marriage date, place and with whom in my genealogical softwares, but I'm using myself as a primary source for the event.

Whope this helps more than it confuses :-)

Oops! Hope* this helps..... :-)

Thanks Remi