Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
how true is this??
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Keith | Report | 2 Jul 2005 22:24 |
|
The oldest tree that I have seen has been reliably dated back to the Emperor Charlemagne and that is for 2 people in America - the info has been validated by the Garter King of Arms or some such person in England. I can believe those 2 but no others. Keith |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Montmorency | Report | 3 Jul 2005 02:22 |
|
Keith, you can't stop at two. If those two people are descended from Charlemagne, so are some of their cousins, 2nd cousins, 3rd cousins, back to about 40th cousins. All the other descendants of everybody in the line. Zillions of people. William the Conqueror's wife was descended from Charlemagne (by 3 different maternal lines). So all the English Royals since then are Charlemagne descendants, plus all the royal bastards (Henry I sired more than a dozen, and gave them titles or married them to titles) But royal descendants aren't all royal or even titled, because the younger sons of younger sons slide down the social scale. You can take any medieval royal whose branch didn't die out, and trace thousands of living descendants. (All you have to do before 1600 is look up who inherited the property when each person died, and what relationship made them the heir. These things are recorded) Then for every one of those living descendants you've proved a line to Charlemagne |
|||
|
Mystified | Report | 3 Jul 2005 07:46 |
|
Don't know if this is relevant here but here goes as I have to get it off my chest. I think so though as we are questioning som trees. Just been on the record office where someone was asking for help and had had assistance which was a fairly obvious solution to something in the early 1800s but what annoyed me the 'requestee' then said how do you order the certificate? Simple and reasonable question if you are a beginner but the person has over 2800 names in their tree!!!! I for one would not like to link to that tree. Am i being mean? |
|||
|
An Olde Crone | Report | 3 Jul 2005 18:33 |
|
John No, you arent being mean and if I were Prime Minister, or Dictator of the World (LOL) then I would sort genealogical research into two types, enforcable by law. 1. That which is proven by certificate and/or church records and/or other documentation, all references and sources to be given in full. 2. That which you have done purely on the Internet/been handed down from your great great uncle who did the tree in 1891/copied from someone else's website. It would make my life so much easier! The Olde Crone |
|||