The fact that two people were married to each other does not necessarily imply that the fatherhood of any child is by blood. Adultery and illegitimacy have always been rife.
Illustrated by the credible but unprovable adage that every person in Italy is descended from at least one pope, none of whom were “married”…
An ancient thread …
This is so ridiculously implausible that it makes me doubt the whole thing. “Gwyr” is the Welsh for Gower, a peninsula in South Wales. Brychan is the eponymous saintly founder of Breconshire, not too far away. Rheged, on the other hand, is way the hell up on the Scottish border. Urien is fairly well known in the Arthurian mythos, though he was a historical figure. His genealogy, though, it deeply suspect. It doesn’t take much digging to tear it apart. link
about some of the possible errors in this part of the tree.
This.
This is brilliant. But I think the article is a little off when it comes to the facts, no? They tested mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down unchanged through the maternal line - it doesn’t come from the father. So Targett could be a descendant of Cheddar Man’s sister, or his maternal aunt, or his maternal great-aunt…but the one thing we know for sure is that (barring incest) he’s *not *a direct descendant of Cheddar Man. All of Cheddar Man’s children would have the mtDNA of their mother(s), not of Cheddar Man.
Any time you see an ancient Briton lineage to classical times, ignore it. They are all at best myth, at worst some modern bozo just making stuff up.
Remember, Geoffrey of Monmouth loved compiling these old myths which included descent from the Trojans, of course. Not just kings, mind you. The whole population.
Frankly, even without the rest of it, the claim that Magnus Maximum, the Western Roman Emperor was anyone’s mother would surprise most historians.
Geni is full of user created content, and some people are not particularly critical of their sources. On ancestry.com I’ve seen people adding half a dozen extra children to a family by using the census record of a couple with similar/the same names in addition to the correct record. And just because something is published doesn’t mean it’s accurate either. I have a printed book showing how I’m decended from Yngve Frey, king of Sweden, otherways known as the god Frey, but that relies on flawed research way before it starts taking mythology and hagiography as fact.
Plus, I am suspicious of any genealogical table which claims that the Emperor Magnus Maximus was a woman.
The rate of false paternity is like 2%, last I saw, which means after 35 generations, there’s a more than 50% chance that the genealogy is false. Of course, that’s probably less true of royal families, where adultery was traditionally considered treason and punished by death. I would imagine that makes the rate of false paternity quite a bit lower.
In mine and my spouse’s case it’s Edward I (she’s descended from one daughter, I from another). The genealogical firm in Canterbury, Kent (a highly reputable one) joked that we shouldn’t get too excited, it would be truly remarkable to find an English man or woman who wasn’t descended from one of the early monarchs.
Conveniently, 35 generations ago, the number of your ancestors without pedigree collapse exceeds the population of the continent your ancestors came from, and possibly of the world itself, so chances are good you’re descended from that ancestor anyway, provided he has living descendants.
Yes the true line of the Caesars still exists, the line is well known to about 750 AD
When Charlemagne Married into my mothers side by concubine, and on my fathers side by Empress Fastrada Holy Roman Empire, Carolingian. I am also directly related to every Pepin every Caesar and beyond to bout 350 BC. BY DNA. so My father on both side are Charlemagne! The line comes from (Martin) who is related to my 34th great grand father (Theuringbert Wormsgau) whose father was Charlemagne.
Our line is the last known line with 7 people in the dna circle?
Not only am I related to every Caesar on both sides of my family, I am also related to almost every king, Queen, baron of consort who ever lived. I am the most royal bloodline in America!
my genealogy site, Home from Caesar to Quakers in America!
Its funny that people would think a famous blood line could run out, when Of course the best records of marriage were that of the Romans. Pretty sure they invented the census. any way their is no doubt, I am related, as well as a few others who come from royal bloodlines on the FITZ, worm, Beauchamp, side of queen Elizabeth II
Everyone of European ancestry is descended from Charlemagne, as well as from most other notable European kings and queens. Nobody at all is descended from Gaius Julius Caesar, who left no descendants past the first generation. So part of your claims are false, and the other part are trivial.
Just discovered a new ancestor, He too is related to Caesar later on, But at this point in time they are the are the Jewish community in Babylon. This is almost cooler than being a Caesar. This is a tribe of Jews that through my family married into french Rome, at the time my grandfathers ran it. The french Pepin is my grandfather also, these are not 2nd cousin 14 removed, these ancestors are my grandparents only. And and on my fathers side only, even though I have eve more royalty on my mothers side to EU royal family. like Elizabeth II. any way here’s a link to the story on the lost Jews of my family!
Now found again. My guy was the it says leader of the exile, and that’s this [URL="Exilarch - Wikipedia 
I found quite a bit of good information at Ancestry. Mostly linked to the grandmother who helped raise me & the Indiana town of her birth. A few generations back, her people were pioneers in that little corner of the state. Going back further, things get fuzzier. Generally, the lines come from Ulster, Pennsylvania, Kentucky (briefly!) to Indiana. But there are lots of similar names & the more prosperous folks have more documentation; the farther back you go, the more questionable are the links. One GG?mother had the maiden name of “Calvert”–obviously, she must be one of the aristocratic, Catholic Calverts of Maryland! Except she lived & died in the northern part of Ireland. Nope…
Most of my folks are Popish bogstompers who arrived more recently.
It doesn’t matter how good the records are, your bloodline runs out if you have no descendants. But the records from Roman times were not that good, and mostly don’t survive anyway.
You should try reading through this whole thread, caeserblood.
To reiterate what has been said repeatedly in this thread, this alleged “new ancestor” of yours whom you’ve supposedly discovered to have lived during the time of the Babylonian exile, is almost certainly either the direct ancestor (not a distant cousin) of the vast majority of people reading this thread, and indeed, the direct ancestor of the vast majority of all people living on Earth today, OR…the ancestor of nobody, because all of that person’s descendants died out sometime in the past. Take your pick.
To paraphrase Chronos from earlier today, your claims are either false or trivial.