I was wondering …
Are there any families today that trace their ancestry back to Roman times? I’m sure there’s tons of bogus claims, but I’m wondering if any of the Roman nobility made it through the dark ages.
Cheers,
Oliver
Most people of European descent with decent genealogy skills and knowledgable about their family background can trace their roots to Charlemagne. Now:
-
There’s an old Frankish genealogy that traces their kings back to Caesar Augustus. It is considered “quasi-mythological”.
-
There’s another genealogy that traces back from Charlemagne thru prominent Dark Ages church officials to a late Western Roman Emperor. Maybe some questions about it but not so blatantly iffy as the first. I don’t know offhand if this genealogy goes even further back.
Note that some of the Roman Imperial Family intermarried with descendants of prominent Hebrew families. So that there are people out there that give their genealogy to Adam and Eve. Oooookay.
There is also at least one SDMB member who is a descendant from the Prophet Muhammad.
That’s total nonsense. Only a handful of very ancient noble families can trace back their ancestry to the XII°-XIII° century. No genealogy skill will allow you to trace your lineage to the middle-ages, because there’s basically no documents left, except if your family happened to be of prime importance at these times (and very few of these families still exist).
The oldest lineage in Europe is the french Capetian family, which has a proven ancestry dating back to around 850. Since Charlemagne died in 814, there’s exactly zero person of european descent who can trace his roots to Charlemagne.
And of course, there’s no way to come back to the roman times. Some noble families during the middle ages had legendary and totally imaginary genealogies. They would find some noticeable ancestor as the supposed founder of the family. Depending on their ambition and on the creativity of their genealogist, this supposed ancestor could range from a famous saint who lived a couple of century ago to a hero of the greek mythology. But these claims were of course totally baseless.
ftg, correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t you trying to say that the overwhelming statistical probability is that any person of European descent is a direct lineal descendent of Charlemagne.
But that doesn’t mean each of us can document that ancestry, through the use of historical documents and records.
Would you be willing to concede that the Byzantine Empire was trully the “Eastern Roman Empire”?
If so, then most European Royal families (like the Romanovs and Swedish Royal fam.) - but trully all & it is a mistake to name names - have * Eastern* Roman Empire descent.
I would gather that European nobility, emperors, kings, etc. have always been so prolific, especially outside of wedlock, that just about every person of (at least Continental) European descent has Roman and non-Roman noble ancestors.
Or to look at it mathematically: Assuming 4 generations per century, 1600 years would be equivalent to 64 generations or potentially 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 ancestors! Of course the number of actual ancestors cannot be anywhere near that for obvious numerical reasons (many of one’s great-great-…-great grandparents will be the same people) but the potential alone shows how likely it is to descend from any given ancestor back at that time. This is particularly likely, taking into consideration all the wars and migrations that have led to genetic mixing and movement.
I don’t think ftg is saying that these are direct male lineages but rather that it’s possible for many people to find out that their father’s mother’s mother’s father’s mother’s mother’s father’s father’s father’s father’s mother was the 3rd daughter of some minor nobility whose mother’s mother was none other then the 3rd daughter of the Duke of Warwick. Now this is very hard but I don’t think we have any real idea how many people today could make a proper document trail for a co-sexual line from themselve back to Charlemagne since many people don’t care about genealogy, many people are bad at genealogy and many people aren’t willing enough to do the work that can make those connections and only a few actually have completed the work necessary to connect back then. I know I’ve got a huge wall in my research and the answer is in Tennessee. I’ve known this for years but simply can’t get there to do the work.
I’ve seen some people on this site claim Roman ancestry. Color me very skeptical. Perhaps one of them could come along and give us a sources ancestral line.
These people would disagree.
There are too many obvious fallacies in this post to counter them all. First of all, I was not talking about direct male descent. Queen Elizabeth (and all royals in Europe) are known descendents of Charlemagne. This is not a disputable fact.
Secondly, there are not two distinct groups of people: the nobles and commons for the last 1000+ years. People intermarry.
I will give a couple of examples from my own genealogy.
I am descended from Hannah Schenck (1833-1863). My mother has old photos of two of her (longer lived) brothers. Hannah came from one of the most prominent early Dutch families of New York (New Amsterdam). One of her ancestors was the first European settler on Long Island. There are shelves of books on the genealogy of these familes. Her ggggg-grandfather was Martin Schenck van Nydeck (1584-1650). The first Schenck in America. Martin’s ancestors were minor nobles in Holland. His g-grandfather was Lord of Afferden. From there, you’re in the Dutch Royal Family database. You soon hit Adelheit van Buren (heard of the van Burens?) and thence into more prominent nobles, etc. up to Judith, princess of the West Franks and then Charles de Groot (as he is given in the Dutch databases).
Given the family’s prominence and success and the centuries involved, I would guesstimate that 10% of all Americans are descended from these early Dutch families. Other prominent families from that era include the Brokaws (as in Tom) and the Bogarts (as in Humphrey). And thus also descended from Charlemagne just via this one branch alone. And there’s a lot of other branches to consider.
Example 2. I wanted to find a direct link to the old Norwegian kings on my father’s side. What I had to start with: a family history written in the 1920’s that lists my g-grandfather’s generation and 3 generations back (to before 1800). The family history has since been confirmed by Norwegian parish and census records. I found all of the ancestors alive at the time in the 1801 Norwegian national census available at the Digital Archive.
One of the ancestor’s listed in the family census was living with her parents and a very old grandfather in the 1801 census. Tracking down the grandfather in parish records and earlier censuses led me to his grandfather (with the same name on the same farm) who lived (c1642-1714). That’s far enough back to use a really great GedCom file austring that covers many of the prominent people in Rogaland going back to the early kings. It is extrememly well documented (unlike 99% of the GedComs out there). In no time I was linked to Sæbjørn Toresson (1510-1578). Quoting from the austring file:
“Most persons with roots in Ryfylke (Rogaland) can trace descent through Sæbjørn Toresson, back to a number of famous Scandinavians of the Middle Ages, including many of the Norwegian, Danish and Swedish kings between Harald Fairhair and Håkon IV.”
The file gives the actual links to Harald Fairhair (860-943). From there, you move into the Kings of the sagas, which give another 1000 years of genealogy to Njord of Noatun, god-King of the Swedes.
Note that almost everyone with an ancestor from Rogaland is therefore descended from a known line going back around 2000 years (at least 1400 of which is historical). You just need to know how to get back to someone relatively prominent in the 1801 census or earlier.
If you have an ancestor from Buskerud Amt in Norway, there’s similar files giving links back to Halvdan “the Black”. And no doubt likewise for the other Norwegian counties.
Hey, I have traceable Roman ancestry. My paternal grandmother emigrated from Rome when she was four years old. Now, ancient Roman ancestry, that’s a little harder… 
I note that ftg has already refuted your argument, clair, but let me add some material:
One of my great-great-grandmothers was a Harrington. Going back four generations, like I did, is something most people can do, with a little effort.
It happens that the Harrington family kept records (family Bible and all that) leading back to a John Harrington who was a Puritan settler and who married an Ann Clinton, daughter of the Puritan convert who was Earl of Lincoln.
The Clintons, in turn, were descended from the Howards and the Staffords, who in turn could show royal ancestry from the Plantagenets. It goes almost without saying that if your property and income are based on your ancestry, as was the case for most noble families prior to the Industrial Revolution, you keep careful records of that sort of thing.
The Plantagenets, in turn, can show ancestry to the House of Wessex and to the Counts of Flanders, both of whom link back to daughters of Charlemagne.
The linkage back to Roman times is, as noted, iffy – but there are historical records of the ancestor who supposedly married into a lineage that does trace back through the Dark Ages.
My point is not to brag about my noble ancestry – for the most part, I could care less. The fact of the matter is that nearly everybody can at least theoretically establish the same sort of linkage – assuming they can tie at some point into a line already researched.
(E.g., also from my own genealogical researches – another great-great-grandmother was born a Chaffee, granddaughter of Comfort Chaffee of Berkshire, VT. One of his great-great-grandmothers was a Persis Rice, and Rice, when you trace that line, becomes an Anglicization of Rhys, adopted as a surname, and lineal descendents of the Rhys ap Tewdwr Dynevor line of Gwynnedd in Wales.)
I think you mean the opposite: you could not care less.
Walloon: Precisely right. This slangy phrase started as an ironic twist on “I could not care less” and was popular to the extent of clichédom a few years ago; I probably should not have used it.
I have traced my line back to a roman commder. The same commader who was sent to deal with Maxmus when he tried to take over rome. His name was fluvius. So it is possible to do so it is easyer when one has famous ancesters. It is possible even if you don’t it just takes work. To the one who is decendent from charlegmanes daughters hi distant cusion I to am a decedent of louis the pius. I know how you feel about not caring less I only looked my tree up for the fun of it in to see where my family came from
I can quite reliably trace by ancestry back to the 13th century just from a few fairly simple internet searches.
There’s a few Lords and a Lord Justice and a lot of baronets, but no-one of prime importance in the lineage I can trace.
Be aware that this thread is over a decade old. Also be aware that Gewnpen is not descended from any English teachers.
There are two kinds of people: the people who can trace their ancestry, and the people whose ancestry records were burned by the first kind. I belong to the second kind of people.
I thought membership in those two groups was regularly swapped depending on which christian sect was in charge at the time.
Doesn’t really apply in my case.
Ariel: You ever heard of the Masada? For two years, 900 Jews held their own against 15,000 Roman soldiers. They chose death before enslavement. The Romans? Where are they now?
Tony Soprano: You’re looking at them, asshole.