Gottskalk "grimmi" Nilsson (Nikulásson) Torsnes ((Skanke)), Biskop på Hólar is my 7th cousin 21 times removed.
Is this true? It's from a page with a Harry Potter picture:)
"Bishop Gottskalk the Cruel  was the greatest wizard of his day; he gathered together all the black spells, which had never been used since heathen times, and wrote them all down in a magic book called Red Skin. It was written in gold letters, and looked most magnificent in every way; it was written in runes, like other books of spells. The Bishop grudged that this book should pass to anyone else after his time, and therefore he had it buried with him, and he taught nobody all his lore."
@Erica Howton - that ws the Lore of Gottskalk - In reality he was real. But he was a persistent man and made himself and the Church immensely weathy. He inherited the Bishop_post at Holar from his uncle.
His daughter, Kristin, whom I descend in 29 ways from was a woman of substantial wealt and kindness.
Are you referring to this site?
Something I like to think about. Maybe it means something, maybe it doesn't.
If you keep tracing back, doesn't it seems like you always find better sources when they owned real estate and left wills? So right off, you make the most progress on the lines that were wealthier and more prominent.
If you keep going, you get to a dead end on most lines. But, on a few lines they just keep getting higher and higher on the social scale, until some time back in the 1200s or 1400s some lines turn into nobles and kings.
But really, when you think about it, isn't that inevitable? If you can keep going at all, you can only keep going if there are records. And if most of the records are for the nobles and kings, those are the ancestors you'll find.
I like to think that from the very first day I started doing genealogy, I was predestined to find my royal ancestry.
So I say "meh" to royal lines ;)
I'm far prouder of the fact that I can trace my direct male line ancestry to a man mentioned in 1313, and with some uncertainty to his father (?) who was mentioned in 1282. I promise you, that took some real work!
Thats very true Justin ;) In Norway most documented lines stops where the Churchbooks stops, but if your lucky you find ancestors in tax lists and trials. And then you might be lucky to find them in middleage-letters collected in "Diplomatarium Norvegicum". And from then on, if you can document the gap between 1500 and before the Black death, then most probably you will find nobles or kings in your ancestry. But that takes a lot of work and in many cases you have to research in foreign sources..
Justin Swanström (taking a break), something to add to your comment. :)
I started my genealogical adventure at a very young age. Even few years earlier, my family used to tell me stories about noble ancestors, real estate owners that have the same name as me... and the stories of how my ancestors lost their wealth etc. etc. Hearing such things I was curious to find out about the connection!
Well, after few years of research it turned out, that my farthest direct male ancestor was a butcher in a small village (living in 1706-1791, so not that long time ago). :) I'm more than ok with it, perhaps I'm a little disappointed but only because there will be obstacles that I wouldn't be able to defeat. If the ancestors were to be noble, lots of documents could lead me to the farthest ages, i.e. to Charlemagne.
But still, I have got some noble ancestors (not that wealthy Polish nobility, some of them in XV century), with the line to royalty still to be determined. :)
That's exactly the world we all live in, I think ;)
I've very proud of my peasant line all the way back to 1313 with no hint of nobility. They're my ancestors, so I'd love them even if they were nobles, but I am especially proud that I found them myself and proved the connections no one else could prove.
That's my male line. On my mom's side, the Swanströms, I can only get back to a Swedish solider who joined the army in 1752. There is a close DNA match with a family in a neighboring village, but if there's a connection it's going to be tough to find.
This NationalGeographic.com article explains how there comes a point in history when "all individuals who have any descendants among the present-day individuals" (that's us) "are actually ancestors of all present-day individuals."
"all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400 ... About a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today."
So anyone of European descent is probably related to Charlemagne, and to his royal relatives as well.
I very much doubt whether all Europeans could claim common ancestry as early as 1400. For 800, the claim may be more or less true (but there are surely exceptions). The higher up the social ladder you were, the more likely it was that your children might marry outside the immediate neighbourhood. Of course people rose or fell in the social hierarchy, and even peasants moved, but the Catholic church offered a maybe not very fulfilling way to deal with sons or daughters that the richer could not provide matches for - make them a monk or a nun, with the theoretical assumption that they would not have children (although Maltese and Italian genealogies seem to have amazing numbers of monks with children).
It seems to me that Justin is quite right to be proud to prove peasant ancestry as early as 1313 - nobility is just a matter of copy-paste in most cases. I think that in England it could be done in at least some areas, where manorial court records exist and where the peasantry were mostly free and litigious (Lincolnshire, for example)
To the all persons of European descent are related to Charlemagne
Jan H. W. Sundberg
Posted a few Good links, on the previous Page (p. 1) of this very Same thread.
I know we all have Limited time (and if Geneology has taught me anything, it's that, life IS short... whether, 5 or 55... Or 95.)
But, it would appear to me, the best method to participating in a discussion/conversation, is to reap the general background and key elements of the topic (and sub- topics and side streets) to acquire a healthy overview & to avoid reiteration, ( and in some "discussion threads, not this one.) latent redundancy, when possible.
*no this is not personal AND/OR addressed in any one specific direction. More of a public information bulletin.
<3 Renée <3
p.s. Justin, I agree completely, I also do not "discriminate" between "noble" and "peasant" or "common" persons, either... should we be related and this be multiply documented and verified, then they are plain -n- simple family, wherever and from whatever, they came from.
"http://nos.nl/koningshuis/artikel/629774-nijmegen-viert-karel-de-gr... It is Charles the Great year in Nijmegen 2014 !!!! Please have a look here ! Charles did have a Palts / Castle in Nijmegen."
And my answer to Jan .... No way Jan !
I am also a descendant of Charles the Great in about 7 different lines (all through/via my mothers mother), but I did research on my mothers father and all his ancestors, but for sure he is not descending of Charles the Great ! And he is also European, even with German and French blood. And so I also did do a lot of research for Dutch friends of mine as well and all their lines also do not go to any kind of Royalty as well ! And for sure not to Charles The Great ! People who say that almost all Europeans can be traced back to, or descend of Charles The Great, do not do any genealogical research themselves, or not enough ... otherwise they would never say this ! Only ... a lot of European Royalty go back to Charles the Great, ... Royalty ! But ... many of them (I did do research on that, since my ancestors are European Royalty) also do not descend of Charles the Great ! So, if you yourself descend of Charles the Great and you meet somebody else who also descend of Charles the Great ... that is still very special !!! Believe me ! I forgot my own lines going back to grandpa Charles ;) and my mothers friend asked her, how her lines were going down to Charles the Great, since this friend did not want to believe my mother. My mother is a very ill, old lady in an old peoples Home, so I wanted to print out her line going back to Charles the Great (she has 7 lines going back to him) and believe me or not ... it took me two whole weeks to trace back even one of these lines going back to Charles the Great ! It got me all frustrated back then and I was searching in all our Royal lines, just could not find it. So if anybody dare to say that almost all Europeans are descending of Charles the Great, please tell them that what they are saying is nonsense ! That is just whishful thinking of some people, but for sure, not reality ! Greetings to all my far, far cousins down here from the Netherlands !
Oh ... another thing ... in the Netherlands most of the genealogy of people only go back up to 1600 (if they are Lucky) and only the lines / genealogical lines of Royalty go back further than that ! But Royal lines many times also go not further back then until 1100 or something. This means these Royal people also do not descend of Charles The Great, otherwise their lines would for sure be written down, since in those olden days it was very important for Royals to have ancestors of such power and to have Noble ancestors. They would all have wanted to have proof of that ancestery, so the family would have kept such a proof in writing, most of the times. Or it would be written down in some archive or such, but if it isn't there to be found, it just means they are not related to Charles the Great and most Dutch were farmers in those days (around 1600), well, I have 1 ancestor who was a farmer, descending of Charles The Great, but .... really, most farmers were not even of any kind of Royal descend and their lines cannot be traced back to before 1600 ! So at first I did not want to believe that this one farmer ancestor of mine is indeed descending of charles the Great. I just could not believe that ! I really did find that so odd, but ... in the end three other genealogical researchers came to me with proof to convince me on my very own ancestor. I did have to believe them. His ancestors were Gentlemen farmers with big, big plots of land and huge farms they did rent out to Noble people, one of this Gentleman farmers married one of this Noble girls, who was the daughter of a LandLord, Lord of a Mannor and his parents were of higher Nobility and so on ... it really was a shock to find out that this farmers son of a real farmer area in the Netherlands is indeed descending of Charles the Great, but for sure he is an exception ! I do intensively Genealogical research from 1996 until recently and not even one other farmer among my own ancestors and among the ncestors of my family and friends are even of Royal or Noble descend, so for sure not descending from Charles the Great who was an Emperor and King, not a farmer !
Sorry ... me here again. Why I did not find the proof of this one farmer ancestor of mine, descending of Charles the Great myself, is because he was from the Provence of Groningen and he went to the Dutch Indies as a soldier. I am good in genealogy in the archives of the South and the middle/centre of the Netherlands, but the Dutch-Indies and the North of the Netherlands is rather difficult to me. Many of the documents are also in Indonesian or in a dialect I myself cannot read and the archives are to far for me to go to myself, so that is why. But almost all other ancestors I did find myself ! And ... wow Justin, 1300 ? And no Royalty or Noble people among them ??? That is great ! Here in the Netherlands it most of the times stops, only some exceptions are very good puzzling with patronymes (Jan Janszoon /John Johnsson/ John son of John), that is really hard to trace back down to even 1500 down here. I did find a tree in Amsterdam (my ancestors) of Reindert Reindertszoon which later became Reindert Rijndorp, I could trace that back to 1500, but further down was impossible for me :(
Whats with the name "Karolus 'Magnus' Roi des Francs, Rex Francorum & Imperator Romanorum" ?
He was either called ....
Charlemagne (Latin: Carolus Magnus, English: Charles the Great, German: Karl der Große, Dutch: Karel de Grote) or he was most commonly known as "Charlemagne
HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR" or KIng Charlemagne
I think his profile name should be changed
BTW he was my 34th great-grandfather a few times over. I am a great granddaughter of a few of his children. And Hildegard of Vinzgau one of his wives was also my 36th great aunt. Her brother Adrian of Orléans van Vinzgouw Count of Orléans was my 36th great-grandfather
But you need to include Charlemagne , because that's how most people know him as, the historical name, You can't ignore history or parts of it you don't want or like or agree with. History is part of genealogy. You know this and I know this. We all know this. This is a subject that just keeps giving and giving.