I started researching this a few hours ago when I noticed the insanity of it too. I think I've found something, but I'm not sure where to check its validity. What I found, says he was born circa 570 and it claims a source is an ancestral file by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/c/r/i/Pamela-Cox-Criswel...
The date would make lots more sense than 425, but it would still be a little questionable, since it would mean he fathered a child at age 80, which would be very unlikely but could be possible.
The page also claims his sons were born around 600 AD, which would make tons of sense if Heytir is born around 570.
Like I said though, I'm unsure how to check if this is accurate.
If Thorri was born 320
Gorr was born 365
Heti was born 424 (and that's stretching it)
Svadi should come in around 500 but he doesn't.
It's like there is a missing generation or two.
Now, there are two Halfdans, one dsscended from Gorr and the other form Norr. Of course, if these are mythical people anything is possible.
There's only one source for these people (Flateyarbok, two sagas in there with slightly different naming), and none of them give dates.
The dates people have put on them are completely arbitrary - I don't know who came up with them. I've not wanted to erase them altogether, since leaving them empty gives its own problems, but I've not wanted to replace them with my own guesswork either.
If I could find a historian with a list of reasonable dates, I'd use that, even though he'd have invented them too - at least we'd have something consistent.
The joys of working with legendary people....
Harald, curator active around these profiles
Okay, I'm going to invent. I am assuming the ancient records told some truth, so I basing my assumption on their record of information.
I now have in my database"
Heti Gorrsson b. 424 m. Aerial Volksdattir
Heytir II b. abt 465
Heytir III b. abt 505
Gorr II abt 550
Heytir V abt 600
Svidir Heytsson abt 645
Svadi the Sea King abt 695 m. Hild Ericsdottir
Thanks for the link to Wilson's compilation!
But please get those assumed persons out again. We have no reason to assume their existence - the evidence we have is that they were not documented, and we have no documented dates indicating that there were missing generations.
The "old" record you quote seems to be a compilation of books written between 1874 and 1979 - the late 18th century was a very happy time for people who invented genealogies and dates, and the echo chamber effect of people repeating each others' claims was quite strong then, even before the advent of the Internet.
The Flateyarbok, which is the *original* source for these claims, is from the 14th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flateyjarb%C3%B3k).
The two sagas that give the Fornjot lines are these:
FWIW, if you read the Ynglinge Saga, which gives the (legendary) history of the Nordic kings of approx 600-1000, you will find very few occurences of a son being named the same as his father (I can't think of any at the moment).
There are many cases of sons being named for their grandfathers, uncles or other near relatives, but not for their fathers. So this line of argument (that one would skip over people with the same name) is quite suspect.
I've seen the claim that skipped generations are common before, and tend to believe it - given that the means of handing down this information was oral, not written, it's easy to see how that could happen.
(sorry for writing so much)
I see where Wilson is copying from:
"This kind of information on royal lines of descent was for many years very difficult to locate because of the obscure nature of the old books and references. However, in modern times. the genealogists of the Mormon Church have programmed all of the old European lineages into a huge computer database that anyone can access through their website, www.familysearch.com. What a massive job that must have been! And what a fascinating historical resource it now makes, not only for genealogists but for anyone interested in the details of human history."
Unfortunately the religious reasons for the LDS records gives them very strong reasons to add people if there's any doubt whether they existed or not - and the quality of their records for this time in history is ..... VERY variable. The LDS cannot be used as a source for this material - and these particular LDS records have no notation giving their source. I know - I've looked.
So LDS records for ancient-history persons are strictly a hint for genealogists. No more.