Sigurd "Ring" Randversson, Danish king {mythological} - Misleading Genealogy?

Because they are not sure if he was a myth. They used to think all old European genealogy were myths, but they have been finding out many of those myths are actually more like fishing stories based on facts but embellished and exaggerated over the years for prestige and entertainment.

Well, that's cool to know. I know several profiles I've seen tagged as mythological or lengendary and have been disconnected are folks many believe to be real people but the curators don't tend to reverse those. I always have considered that most, not all certainly, myths and legends have some basis in reality. I guess I'll go ahead and add the connections to my tree 'just in case' they're my actual ancestors. Thanks for some encouragement that they 'may' be valid connections.

I have to smile ... interesting how a mythological person can be my 34th Great Grandfather. I have Visigoth ancestors and many others who are also mythological and all linked into my Swedish lineage.

The fishing story - well these are still profiles that still hang around in the obscure waters of ancient genealogy, whether fact or fiction they still remain ancestors.

Beautifully stated, Coralie.

There's a bit of truth in many myths, but to separate myth from fiction is impossible without evidence. This happened before people used paper to document, instead they used oral tradition, sometimes they preserved some facts on runestones, but the problem is, that popular people, kings etc, often was likely to be pasted with incredible anecdotes, like the one ablut Sigurd and how he became in love with a girl who didn't want him, so he killed her brothers and took her by force, wherupon she killed her self by taking poison, then he loaded her and her brothers on a ship, sailed out and set fired to it all and commited suicide. In real life, at that time, the kings just took what they wanted and ordinary people had noting at all to say about it and love was never on the table. When it comes to his death, it's more likely that he died in a battle than by his own hand, most of them actually did that.

Alex Moes I know what you're saying, but it's not always the case. Those of us with Native American ancestry find our lines cut on Geni all the time and ancestors marked as fictional / legendary because there are no written records from their time period, only oral tradition passed down in many cases. Even when there is a historical marker put up by a Historical Society in their state, some Geni curators sitll say they weren't real and cut their lines. Those of us who have experienced that have found it interesting to note that Native lines get cut like that but then lines in question like this one are left intact. Curators are just regular folks, like us in most cases, who have volunteered to help on Geni. One told me that it's not a curator's job to do the genealogy but to help with merges, etc. However, it seems some do think it's their job to decide who was or wasn't real on some lines, in spite of any evidence to the contrary. So a lot seems to hang in the balance of which curator is working on any given line and what their personal opinions are. I have friends who have left Geni over this and more who plan to when their current paid memberships expire. I don't share this to indicate in any way that I think this particular line should be cut but just to clarify that not all questionable lines like this are left intact and many that are less questionable and have more to support them, even if only generations of oral tradition and maybe a historical marker for the person.

You're right about the two person scenario. Quite often even in much closer generations same-name people have their info mingled into one incorrect person here on Geni quite often.

As for his father, I phrased my question as I did because the father could have been very real but just not the actual father of the child in question. Incorrect parental connections don't necessarily invalidate anyone, just the connection as shown. I question the connections when they contradict the notes in the profiles, as in this case.

My questioning of the parentage was solely because if they're my ancestors, I feel a vested interest in knowing (as best can be known so far back) what is proven and what is hypothetical. Sometimes when I've asked a question like this on other lines it has brought about a review of existing documentation for the connections and brought some clarification. But when you get this far back, that's not always possible. Still, I'd rather ask in case there is more info I might learn. Any clarification not only helps me but other descendants as well.

Sigurd "Ring" Randversson, Danish king {mythological} is my 33rd great grandfather.

Remi Trygve Pedersen, thanks for your input, especially after what Erica shared about you. We definitely can benefit from your expertise in connections like these. And thanks providing a time period for when the trustworthiness of such connections becomes questionable.

Debbie Gambrell No, we can not benefit at all from experts like him, and I have suggest that he just leave those profiles alone, just because he has a very strong bias against anything before the years he self mentioned, 1000-1050.

If we just look oure historical, we see a shift between who ruled the countries in Scandinavia after Sigurd Ring, in fact, the battle at Bråvalla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Br%C3%A1vellir

From that point, all the later kings steemed from one family, and they were all the Rings decendants, How was this possible if all is just a myth? Do not either expect that any of these self-appointed "experts" playing curators can tell you why. In my opinion, they have ruined to much already and best for us all would be if they actually only curated profiles on demand.

Thanks for your input Ulf. Agree 100%. There are contradiction in Geni with different lineages. there are contradictions in how history is treated, depending on the continents. etc. In the Middle East there are still profiles where only a few modern 20 descendants go directly to 2000 BCE profiles, even though there should be (millions) thousands of descendants. Then there are the trees of the Bible, in New Zealand oral memory is valued. In the Nordic countries, oral knowledge was refined into sagas, poems and songs.

No continent is without propaganda or exaggerated miracles and myths, but especially here in the north, ancestors have been worshiped, and mythical names do not make them less true. I have been very interested in the similar myths of the Sami and other Scandinavian tribes that lived "together".

It is certain that with european heritage are all descendants of those who were born thousand(s) of years ago and had children, although the paths are impossible to prove. The world tree is a great idea and it would be good to practice uniformity, if on one side of the globe people are connected to "mythical figures", why not on others. In the north, the attitude towards sagas and ancestors has been religious, as well as connections with ancient prophets from some other cultures. It is important that all possible information is collected, it is a different matter whether they are connected to family trees; this issue and question of conformity comes into play - very difficult to say and decide where the line goes.

Erica Howton Geni has in fact to standards, one modern 100% based on facts from more recent churchrecords, taxing lengths, military lists, estate records, wills, censuses etc. Either your ancestors are in the records or not, it's that simple and combined with more people taking DNA test, it will improve the lines by detecting the ones that do not fit in due to that an incorrect father has been designated as biological, when he's not. This is a modern standard, it applies only on modern time, or in fact, so long time back in time as the sources are traceable.

The other standard, is for almost everything else before modern time. It depends on what we can find out about the people in question, and how contemporary or reliable that information is regarding to the subject, it's also about finding out if the person was mentioned in different registers or notes, and it may rest on how much it correlates or differs to be considered trustworthy or not when compared, but sometimes it all depends on clues to how they were related, Historians are laying that puzzle, sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't, but it must be plausible, the people in question must fit chronologically, and in some cases it must also make sense in order to be dispayed and set up in our tree.

I believe that Geni can consist of both above, if people valued these simple methods and stuck to the fact over fiction. Marking questionable profiles with for example, "plausible", adding the reasoning behind, it would work. When a branch is considering complete with all what we know, and is as correct as it can be, it should be locked to prevent disturbances, no more mergings, no more profiles added, unless someone raises a discussion and can actually prove otherwise. It's up to every single user to either accept or reject parts in the world tree, but to be able to do that, it must be displayed.

sorry, two standards.

Erica, to decide which profiles that shall go into that bubble take sometimes a lot of intelligence, it takes scrutiny, it takes a person who is careful, analytic, logical and being able to think above a certain threshold, and no, everyone is not actually suited to place people in a bubble, and some profiles placed there by the ones not suitable, should be set free. Being able to do something, doesn't necessarily mean being right in doing that.

We could live with a plausible father to this profile, it worked for 10 years until someone not fit cut the line, and by doing so, sever the line back to Sigurd Ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_Eriksson
His son
Eric the Victorious, king of Sweden

Sigurd "Ring" Randversson, Danish king {mythological} is my 38th great grandfather.
Eric the Victorious, king of Sweden is my 29th great grandfather.