|
JosephSmithSr.
So shall it be with my father: he shall be called a prince over his posterity, holding the keys of the patriarchal priesthood over the kingdom of God on earth, even the Church of the Latter Day Saints, and he shall sit in the general assembly of patriarchs, even in council with the Ancient of Days when he shall sit and all the patriarchs with him and shall enjoy his right and authority under the direction of the Ancient of Days. |
Emperor Charlemagne[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
742 - 814 (71 years) 
Submit Photo / Document
Set As Default Person 
-
Name , Charlemagne Prefix Emperor Nickname The Great Birth 2 Apr 742 Ingelheim am Rhein, Mainz-Bingen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Deutschland 
[3] Christening 5 Apr 752 Saint-Denis, Seine-Saint-Denis, Saint-Denis Cathedral, Basilique Saint-Denis, Île-de-France, Francia (Frankenrijk) Gender Male Death 28 Jan 814 Aachen, Aix-la-Chapelle (Aken), Nordrhein-Westfalen, Deutschland [3] Burial 9 Feb 814 Aachen, Aachen Cathedral, Kathedral von Aachen, Cathédrale d'Aix-la-Chapelle, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Deutschland WAC 21 Jan 1922 _TAG Temple Headstones 
Submit Headstone Photo Person ID I60450 Joseph Smith Sr and Lucy Mack Smith Last Modified 19 Aug 2021
Family 1 Himiltrud d. DECEASED Family ID F26897 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 24 Jan 2022
Family 2 Mathalgard d. DECEASED Family ID F26896 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 24 Jan 2022
Family 3 Gerswind d. DECEASED Family ID F26895 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 24 Jan 2022
Family 4 REGINOPYCRHA, Regina , b. Abt 770, Aachen, Rhineland, Prussia, Germany Aachen, Rhineland, Prussia, Germanyd. 7 Jun 884, Aachen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany (Age 114 years) 
Children2 sons and 1 daughter Family ID F26289 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 24 Jan 2022
Family 5 Galiena d. DECEASED Family ID F26286 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 24 Jan 2022
Family 6 Adelheid Family ID F26285 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 24 Jan 2022
Children 1. Hiltrud , b. Abt 787 d. Bef 814 (Age < 26 years) Family ID F25576 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 24 Jan 2022
Family 8 SCHWABEN, Empress Hildegard Von , b. 2 Apr 757, Aachen, Aix-la-Chapelle (Aken), Nordrhein-Westfalen, Deutschland Aachen, Aix-la-Chapelle (Aken), Nordrhein-Westfalen, Deutschlandd. 30 Apr 783, Thionville, Moselle, Lorraine, Francia (Frankenrijk) (Age 26 years) Marriage 771 Aachen, Rhineland, Prussia, Germany [3] Notes - MARRIAGE: Also shown as Married , Aachen, Rheinland, Prussia.
Children3 sons and 7 daughters Family ID F19517 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 24 Jan 2022
Family 9 Hermingardis Desiderata , b. 2 Apr 742, Ingelheim, Rheinhessen, Hesse-Darmstadt Ingelheim, Rheinhessen, Hesse-Darmstadtd. 774, Rhineland, Achen, Prussia, Germany (Age 31 years) Marriage 771 Divorce Yes, date unknown Family ID F27215 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 24 Jan 2022
Family 10 Countess Fastrada d. DECEASED Marriage 783 Worms, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany Children1 son and 1 daughter Family ID F25729 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 24 Jan 2022
Family 11 Luitgard , b. Abt 776, Aachen, Rhineland, Prussia, Germany Aachen, Rhineland, Prussia, Germanyd. 4 Jun 800, Tours, Indre-et-Loire, France (Age 24 years) Marriage Aft 794 Family ID F25725 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 24 Jan 2022
-
Notes - --Other Fields THE ROYAL LINE - CHART PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK STAKE GENEALOGICAL BOARD THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY DAINTS CENTENNIAL EXHIBITION - MARCH 1936 Compiled from - "The Kinship of families" by Archibald F. Bennett "Adam to New Chart" by Mrs. Eva Sells Jaeger "Europe's Royal Family Tree" by E. L. Sandberg "Pedigree of Joseph Smith, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D Roosevelt" by Karl Weiss "Present Time and Prophecies" by James H. Anderson Bible, Pearl of Great Price Secular History (Notice - These copies are presented to you with some misspelling and ommission due to human errors. We offer it as a challenge to anyone to correct them.) Abraham 3:23 - "And God saw these souls that that were good and He said, I will make these my rulers." --------------- House of Pepin Dynasty of Charlemagne by Ed Stephan (Map of Anglo-Saxon Kingdom (Great Britian), (Europe) - Saxons, Austrasia (Germany), Bethenia, Neustra, Burgundy, Carinthia, Kembar, Provence, Aquitaine (France), (Italy) Moslems (Spain/Portugal)) Authorities - 1. History of England, Larson, p. 57 and 176. 2. Leading Facts French History. Montegomery, p. 300. 3. Allstrom's Dictionary. Royal Lineage, p. 326-419-328-575 4. Hume History of England Vol. I, p. 136 5. Complete Peerage by C. E. C., Vol. 6 p. 345 6. Bank Baronage in Fee Vol. 1 p. 211 Omerode Cheshire, Vol. III. p. 88 7. Complete Peerage, G.E.C. 8. Complete Peerage, G.E.C. 9. Coppingers Manors in Suffolk. Vol. 2, p. 77 10. Visiliation of Norfolk, V I, pg. 79 11. Owens and Blakenaye Shrewsbury, Vol. II. p. 129 12. Shropshire Archaeilogy Vol. 44, p. 15 (Sir Wm. Burley was Speaker, House of Commons. (1422 and 1464) 12. Visitation Staffordshire, 1382. -------------------- Line of Ephriam. The father of modern government and public eduction. Charlemagne was married four times and had six wives by arrangements of brevet. We descend thrugh wife three, Hildegarde, who died April 30, 783. http://www.ancestry.myfamily.com/library/ YOU ARE DESCENDED FROM ROYALTY - Every time I think about finding kings and queens in the family tree, I create a mental image of the would-be social climbers of years ago who researched family trees in hopes of proving themselves to be "better" than the average person. How little they knew. It seems that the "average person" also has royal ancestry. In fact, there is nothing more common than having a few bluebloods in the family tree. Lisa Oberg and George Anderson both sent e-mails this week telling me about a fascinating article in the May 2002 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. That issue contains an article by Steve Olson, called "The Royal We: The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne." In the article, Olsen describes his own search for his Irish ancestors. He goes on to detail what he learned from Mark Humphrys, a computer scientist at Dublin City University, as well as from some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. In short, everyone of European descent has royal ancestry. Chang's mathematical model makes the case for the number of ancestors that each of us has: "The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors - a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived." The article goes on at some length to explain the realities of migration patterns and intermarriage within small communities. Olsen writes, "The number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, 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." Another preconceived idea that needs to be shattered is that royalty only married royalty, and therefore, commoners would not likely have royal blood in their veins. Humphrys says, "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant." Steve Olson's article in The Atlantic is very interesting, and I would suggest that every genealogist read it in its entirety at: Professor Joseph Chang's paper is a bit more difficult for non-mathematicians to read. It is available at: www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/pubs/Ancestors.pdf . The best quote of all came from Mark Humphrys: "You can ask whether everyone in the Western world is descended from Charlemagne, and the answer is yes, we're all descended from Charlemagne. But can you prove it? That's the game of genealogy." ------------------------------ THE ROYAL WE - May 2002 Atlantic Monthly The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne by Steve Olson. A few years ago the Genealogical Office in Dublin moved from a back room of the Heraldic Museum up the street to the National Library. The old office wasn't big enough for all the people stopping by to track down their Irish ancestors, and even the new, much larger office is often crowded. Because of its history of oppression and Catholic fecundity, Ireland has been a remarkably productive exporter of people. The population of the island has never exceeded 10 million, but more than 70 million people worldwide claim Irish ancestry. On warm summer days, as tourists throng nearby Trinity College and Dublin Castle, the line of visitors waiting to consult one of the office's professional genealogists can stretch out the door. I suspect that many people have had a fling with genealogy somewhat like mine. In my office I have a file containing the scattered lines of Olsons and Taylors, Richmans and Sigginses (my Irish ancestors), that I gathered several years ago in a paroxysm of family-mindedness. For the most part my ancestors were a steady stream of farmers, ministers, and malcontents. Yet a few of the Old World lines hint at something grander-they include a couple of knights, and even a baron. I've never taken the trouble to find out, but I bet with a little work I could achieve that nirvana of genealogical research, demonstrated descent from a royal family. Earlier this year I went to Dublin to learn more about the Irish side of my family and to talk about genealogy with Mark Humphrys, a young computer scientist at Dublin City University. Humphrys has dark hair, deep-blue eyes, heavily freckled arms, and a pasty complexion. He became interested in genealogy as a teenager, after hearing romantic stories about his ancestors' roles in rebellions against the English. But when he tried to trace his family further into the past, the trail ran cold. The Penal Laws imposed by England in the early eighteenth century forbade Irish Catholics from buying land or joining professions, which meant that very few permanent records of their existence were generated. "Irish people of Catholic descent are almost completely cut off from the past," Humphrys told me, as we sat in his office overlooking a busy construction site. (Dublin City University, which specializes in information technology and the life sciences, is growing as rapidly as the northern Dublin suburb in which it is located.) "The great irony about Ireland is that even though we have this long, rich history, almost no person of Irish-Catholic descent can directly connect to that history." While a graduate student at Cambridge University, Humphrys fell in love with and married an English woman, and investigating her genealogy proved more fruitful. Her family knew that they were descended from an illegitimate son of the tenth Earl of Pembroke. After just a couple of hours in the Cambridge library, Humphrys showed that the Earl of Pembroke was a direct descendant of Edward III, making Humphrys' wife the King's great-granddaughter twenty generations removed. Humphrys began to gather other genealogical tidbits related to English royalty. Many of the famous Irish rebels he'd learned about in school turned out to have ancestors who had married into prominent Protestant families, which meant they were descended from English royalty. The majority of American presidents were also of royal descent, as were many of the well-known families of Europe. Humphrys began to notice something odd. Whenever a reliable family tree was available, almost anyone of European ancestry turned out to be descended from English royalty-even such unlikely people as Hermann Göring and Daniel Boone. Humphrys began to think that such descent was the rule rather than the exception in the Western world, even if relatively few people had the documents to demonstrate it. Humphrys compiled his family genealogies first on paper and then using computers. He did much of his work on royal genealogies in the mid-1990s, when the World Wide Web was just coming into general use. He began to put his findings on Web pages, with hyperlinks connecting various lines of descent. Suddenly dense networks of ancestry jumped out at him. "I'd known these descents were interconnected, but I'd never known how much," he told me. "You can't see the connections reading the printed genealogies, because it's so hard to jump from tree to tree. The problem is that genealogies aren't two-dimensional, so any attempt to put them on paper is more or less doomed from the start. They aren't three-dimensional, either, or you could make a structure. They have hundreds of dimensions." Much of Humphrys's genealogical research now appears on his Web page "Royal Descents of Famous People." Sitting in his office, I asked him to show me how it works. He clicked on the name Walt Disney. Up popped a genealogy done by Brigitte Gastel Lloyd (Humphrys links to the work of others whenever possible) showing the twenty-two generations separating Disney from Edward I. Humphrys pointed at the screen. "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant." The idea that virtually anyone with a European ancestor descends from English royalty seems bizarre, but it accords perfectly with some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations-two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents-but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors-a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived. In a 1999 paper titled "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang showed how to reconcile the potentially huge number of our ancestors with the quantities of people who actually lived in the past. His model is a mathematical proof that relies on such abstractions as Poisson distributions and Markov chains, but it can readily be applied to the real world. Under the conditions laid out in his paper, the most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past-only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang's model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, 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. Chang's model incorporates one crucial assumption: random mating in the part of the world under consideration. For example, every person in Europe would have to have an equal chance of marrying every other European of the opposite sex. As Chang acknowledges in his paper, random mating clearly does not occur in reality; an Englishman is much likelier to marry a woman from England than a woman from Italy, and a princess is much likelier to marry a prince than a pauper. These departures from randomness must push back somewhat the date of Europeans' most recent common ancestor. But Humphrys's Web page suggests that over many generations mating patterns may be much more random than expected. Social mobility accounts for part of the mixing-what Voltaire called the slippered feet going down the stairs as the hobnailed boots ascend them. At the same time, revolutions overturn established orders, countries invade and colonize other countries, and people sometimes choose mates from far away rather than from next door. Even the world's most isolated peoples-Pacific islanders, for example-continually exchange potential mates with neighboring groups. This constant churning of people makes it possible to apply Chang's analysis to the world as a whole. For example, almost everyone in the New World must be descended from English royalty-even people of predominantly African or Native American ancestry, because of the long history of intermarriage in the Americas. Similarly, everyone of European ancestry must descend from Muhammad. The line of descent for which records exist is through the daughter of the Emir of Seville, who is reported to have converted from Islam to Catholicism in about 1200. But many other, unrecorded descents must also exist. Chang's model has even more dramatic implications. Because people are always migrating from continent to continent, networks of descent quickly interconnect. This means that the most recent common ancestor of all six billion people on earth today probably lived just a couple of thousand years ago. And not long before that the majority of the people on the planet were the direct ancestors of everyone alive today. Confucius, Nefertiti, and just about any other ancient historical figure who was even moderately prolific must today be counted among everyone's ancestors. Toward the end of our conversation Humphrys pointed out something I hadn't considered. The same process works going forward in time; in essence every one of us who has children and whose line does not go extinct is suspended at the center of an immense genetic hourglass. Just as we are descended from most of the people alive on the planet a few thousand years ago, several thousand years hence each of us will be an ancestor of the entire human race-or of no one at all. The dense interconnectedness of the human family might seem to take some of the thrill out of genealogical research. Sure, I was able to show in the Genealogical Office that my Siggins ancestors are descended from the fourteenth-century Syggens of County Wexford; but I'm also descended from most of the other people who lived in Ireland in the fourteenth century. Humphrys took issue with my disillusionment. It's true that everyone's roots go back to the same family tree, he said. But each path to our common past is different, and reconstructing that path, using whatever records are available, is its own reward. "You can ask whether everyone in the Western world is descended from Charlemagne, and the answer is yes, we're all descended from Charlemagne. But can you prove it? That's the game of genealogy." -------------------------------- Charlemagne descends by fifteen generations to Eleanor of Castile, who married Edward I, of England. Eighteen generations descended we come to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, a direct descendant on this line from Antenor. EVEN: Rgn Date: BET. 800 - 814 Place: Holy Roman Empire EVEN: Acceded Date: 768 Ref Number: 5585 THE ROYAL LINE - CHART PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK STAKE GENEALOGICAL BOARD THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY DAINTS CENTENNIAL EXHIBITION - MARCH 1936 Compiled from - "The Kinship of families" by Archibald F. Bennett "Adam to New Chart" by Mrs. Eva Sells Jaeger "Europe's Royal Family Tree" by E. L. Sandberg "Pedigree of Joseph Smith, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D Roosevelt" by Karl Weiss "Present Time and Prophecies" by James H. Anderson Bible, Pearl of Great Price Secular History (Notice - These copies are presented to you with some misspelling and ommission due to human errors. We offer it as a challenge to anyone to correct them.) Abraham 3:23 - "And God saw these souls that that were good and He said, I will make these my rulers." --------------- House of Pepin Dynasty of Charlemagne by Ed Stephan (Map of Anglo-Saxon Kingdom (Great Britian), (Europe) - Saxons, Austrasia (Germany), Bethenia, Neustra, Burgundy, Carinthia, Kembar, Provence, Aquitaine (France), (Italy) Moslems (Spain/Portugal)) Authorities - 1. History of England, Larson, p. 57 and 176. 2. Leading Facts French History. Montegomery, p. 300. 3. Allstrom's Dictionary. Royal Lineage, p. 326-419-328-575 4. Hume History of England Vol. I, p. 136 5. Complete Peerage by C. E. C., Vol. 6 p. 345 6. Bank Baronage in Fee Vol. 1 p. 211 Omerode Cheshire, Vol. III. p. 88 7. Complete Peerage, G.E.C. 8. Complete Peerage, G.E.C. 9. Coppingers Manors in Suffolk. Vol. 2, p. 77 10. Visiliation of Norfolk, V I, pg. 79 11. Owens and Blakenaye Shrewsbury, Vol. II. p. 129 12. Shropshire Archaeilogy Vol. 44, p. 15 (Sir Wm. Burley was Speaker, House of Commons. (1422 and 1464) 12. Visitation Staffordshire, 1382. -------------------- Line of Ephriam. The father of modern government and public eduction. Charlemagne was married four times and had six wives by arrangements of brevet. We descend thrugh wife three, Hildegarde, who died April 30, 783. http://www.ancestry.myfamily.com/library/ YOU ARE DESCENDED FROM ROYALTY - Every time I think about finding kings and queens in the family tree, I create a mental image of the would-be social climbers of years ago who researched family trees in hopes of proving themselves to be "better" than the average person. How little they knew. It seems that the "average person" also has royal ancestry. In fact, there is nothing more common than having a few bluebloods in the family tree. Lisa Oberg and George Anderson both sent e-mails this week telling me about a fascinating article in the May 2002 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. That issue contains an article by Steve Olson, called "The Royal We: The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne." In the article, Olsen describes his own search for his Irish ancestors. He goes on to detail what he learned from Mark Humphrys, a computer scientist at Dublin City University, as well as from some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. In short, everyone of European descent has royal ancestry. Chang's mathematical model makes the case for the number of ancestors that each of us has: "The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors - a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived." The article goes on at some length to explain the realities of migration patterns and intermarriage within small communities. Olsen writes, "The number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, 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." Another preconceived idea that needs to be shattered is that royalty only married royalty, and therefore, commoners would not likely have royal blood in their veins. Humphrys says, "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant." Steve Olson's article in The Atlantic is very interesting, and I would suggest that every genealogist read it in its entirety at: Professor Joseph Chang's paper is a bit more difficult for non-mathematicians to read. It is available at: www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/pubs/Ancestors.pdf . The best quote of all came from Mark Humphrys: "You can ask whether everyone in the Western world is descended from Charlemagne, and the answer is yes, we're all descended from Charlemagne. But can you prove it? That's the game of genealogy." ------------------------------ THE ROYAL WE - May 2002 Atlantic Monthly The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne by Steve Olson. A few years ago the Genealogical Office in Dublin moved from a back room of the Heraldic Museum up the street to the National Library. The old office wasn't big enough for all the people stopping by to track down their Irish ancestors, and even the new, much larger office is often crowded. Because of its history of oppression and Catholic fecundity, Ireland has been a remarkably productive exporter of people. The population of the island has never exceeded 10 million, but more than 70 million people worldwide claim Irish ancestry. On warm summer days, as tourists throng nearby Trinity College and Dublin Castle, the line of visitors waiting to consult one of the office's professional genealogists can stretch out the door. I suspect that many people have had a fling with genealogy somewhat like mine. In my office I have a file containing the scattered lines of Olsons and Taylors, Richmans and Sigginses (my Irish ancestors), that I gathered several years ago in a paroxysm of family-mindedness. For the most part my ancestors were a steady stream of farmers, ministers, and malcontents. Yet a few of the Old World lines hint at something grander-they include a couple of knights, and even a baron. I've never taken the trouble to find out, but I bet with a little work I could achieve that nirvana of genealogical research, demonstrated descent from a royal family. Earlier this year I went to Dublin to learn more about the Irish side of my family and to talk about genealogy with Mark Humphrys, a young computer scientist at Dublin City University. Humphrys has dark hair, deep-blue eyes, heavily freckled arms, and a pasty complexion. He became interested in genealogy as a teenager, after hearing romantic stories about his ancestors' roles in rebellions against the English. But when he tried to trace his family further into the past, the trail ran cold. The Penal Laws imposed by England in the early eighteenth century forbade Irish Catholics from buying land or joining professions, which meant that very few permanent records of their existence were generated. "Irish people of Catholic descent are almost completely cut off from the past," Humphrys told me, as we sat in his office overlooking a busy construction site. (Dublin City University, which specializes in information technology and the life sciences, is growing as rapidly as the northern Dublin suburb in which it is located.) "The great irony about Ireland is that even though we have this long, rich history, almost no person of Irish-Catholic descent can directly connect to that history." While a graduate student at Cambridge University, Humphrys fell in love with and married an English woman, and investigating her genealogy proved more fruitful. Her family knew that they were descended from an illegitimate son of the tenth Earl of Pembroke. After just a couple of hours in the Cambridge library, Humphrys showed that the Earl of Pembroke was a direct descendant of Edward III, making Humphrys' wife the King's great-granddaughter twenty generations removed. Humphrys began to gather other genealogical tidbits related to English royalty. Many of the famous Irish rebels he'd learned about in school turned out to have ancestors who had married into prominent Protestant families, which meant they were descended from English royalty. The majority of American presidents were also of royal descent, as were many of the well-known families of Europe. Humphrys began to notice something odd. Whenever a reliable family tree was available, almost anyone of European ancestry turned out to be descended from English royalty-even such unlikely people as Hermann Göring and Daniel Boone. Humphrys began to think that such descent was the rule rather than the exception in the Western world, even if relatively few people had the documents to demonstrate it. Humphrys compiled his family genealogies first on paper and then using computers. He did much of his work on royal genealogies in the mid-1990s, when the World Wide Web was just coming into general use. He began to put his findings on Web pages, with hyperlinks connecting various lines of descent. Suddenly dense networks of ancestry jumped out at him. "I'd known these descents were interconnected, but I'd never known how much," he told me. "You can't see the connections reading the printed genealogies, because it's so hard to jump from tree to tree. The problem is that genealogies aren't two-dimensional, so any attempt to put them on paper is more or less doomed from the start. They aren't three-dimensional, either, or you could make a structure. They have hundreds of dimensions." Much of Humphrys's genealogical research now appears on his Web page "Royal Descents of Famous People." Sitting in his office, I asked him to show me how it works. He clicked on the name Walt Disney. Up popped a genealogy done by Brigitte Gastel Lloyd (Humphrys links to the work of others whenever possible) showing the twenty-two generations separating Disney from Edward I. Humphrys pointed at the screen. "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant." The idea that virtually anyone with a European ancestor descends from English royalty seems bizarre, but it accords perfectly with some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations-two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents-but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors-a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived. In a 1999 paper titled "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang showed how to reconcile the potentially huge number of our ancestors with the quantities of people who actually lived in the past. His model is a mathematical proof that relies on such abstractions as Poisson distributions and Markov chains, but it can readily be applied to the real world. Under the conditions laid out in his paper, the most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past-only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang's model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, 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. Chang's model incorporates one crucial assumption: random mating in the part of the world under consideration. For example, every person in Europe would have to have an equal chance of marrying every other European of the opposite sex. As Chang acknowledges in his paper, random mating clearly does not occur in reality; an Englishman is much likelier to marry a woman from England than a woman from Italy, and a princess is much likelier to marry a prince than a pauper. These departures from randomness must push back somewhat the date of Europeans' most recent common ancestor. But Humphrys's Web page suggests that over many generations mating patterns may be much more random than expected. Social mobility accounts for part of the mixing-what Voltaire called the slippered feet going down the stairs as the hobnailed boots ascend them. At the same time, revolutions overturn established orders, countries invade and colonize other countries, and people sometimes choose mates from far away rather than from next door. Even the world's most isolated peoples-Pacific islanders, for example-continually exchange potential mates with neighboring groups. This constant churning of people makes it possible to apply Chang's analysis to the world as a whole. For example, almost everyone in the New World must be descended from English royalty-even people of predominantly African or Native American ancestry, because of the long history of intermarriage in the Americas. Similarly, everyone of European ancestry must descend from Muhammad. The line of descent for which records exist is through the daughter of the Emir of Seville, who is reported to have converted from Islam to Catholicism in about 1200. But many other, unrecorded descents must also exist. Chang's model has even more dramatic implications. Because people are always migrating from continent to continent, networks of descent quickly interconnect. This means that the most recent common ancestor of all six billion people on earth today probably lived just a couple of thousand years ago. And not long before that the majority of the people on the planet were the direct ancestors of everyone alive today. Confucius, Nefertiti, and just about any other ancient historical figure who was even moderately prolific must today be counted among everyone's ancestors. Toward the end of our conversation Humphrys pointed out something I hadn't considered. The same process works going forward in time; in essence every one of us who has children and whose line does not go extinct is suspended at the center of an immense genetic hourglass. Just as we are descended from most of the people alive on the planet a few thousand years ago, several thousand years hence each of us will be an ancestor of the entire human race-or of no one at all. The dense interconnectedness of the human family might seem to take some of the thrill out of genealogical research. Sure, I was able to show in the Genealogical Office that my Siggins ancestors are descended from the fourteenth-century Syggens of County Wexford; but I'm also descended from most of the other people who lived in Ireland in the fourteenth century. Humphrys took issue with my disillusionment. It's true that everyone's roots go back to the same family tree, he said. But each path to our common past is different, and reconstructing that path, using whatever records are available, is its own reward. "You can ask whether everyone in the Western world is descended from Charlemagne, and the answer is yes, we're all descended from Charlemagne. But can you prove it? That's the game of genealogy." -------------------------------- Charlemagne descends by fifteen generations to Eleanor of Castile, who married Edward I, of England. Eighteen generations descended we come to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, a direct descendant on this line from Antenor. Ref: House of Israel by E. L. Whitehead pg. 574 MARR DATE 0770 (DIV) Ref: Colonial and Revolutionary Lineages of America 973.D2ah Vol. 2 - In the early part of his reign, invaded Northern Italy, putting an end to the Lombard kingdom. From 774 to 799 he was at war withthe Saxons, at that time a heathen race east of the Rhine. In 785, Widukind, Saxon leader, submitted and was baptized a Christian, but resistance continued in the outlying portions of the region. Bavaria was next annexed and this brought Charlemagne in conflict with the Avars whose Khan became a Christian in 805. Expeditions were also sent against the Arabs of North Spain. In 800, while in Rome, Charlemagne was crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day, thus reviving the Roman Empire. After a naval war in the Adriatic, in which he surrendered some disputed territory, Charlemagne was saluted by the Greek envoys as Basaileus, Charlemagne witnessed a revival of arts and letters, a revision of Frankish law and thewriting of the laws of Saxons, Thuringians, and Frisians. Also known as Carolus Magus and Charles I, "The Great." The ghost of Charlemagne haunts a wide span of medieval history. This is not the place to discuss exactly what his coronation by Pope Leo III in Rome on Christmas Day 800 signified to the participants. It is enough that a new emperor appeared in the west in contrast to the dynamic continuity of the Byzantine Empire in the eastern Mediterranean, which continued the state established by Augustus down to 1453. The Empire of Charlemagne comprised what we now call France and West Germany as well as the Low Countries, Switzerland, northern Italy and part of Spain. This burden was beyond the capacity of his successors; but in any case the Frankish or Germanic tradition was for division between the surviving sons of a parent. As has been seen, the Treaty of Verdun in 843 arranged a partition into three which later events have made memorable. Germany fell to the share of Louis; but none of his three sons had legitimate issue, though one bastard grandson, Arnulf, became ruler of Germany. Meanwhile the style of emperor had passed to ever more limp and shadowy figures among the descendantsof the great and vigorous Charlemagne. His triumph had been a personal one; nor indeed was the idea of empire consonant with the practice of subdivision of estates. Ref: Einhard, The Life of Charlemagne, with a forward by S. Painter (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1960), pp. 50-51. A precise description of Charlemagne has been given to us by his secretary and biographer, the Saxon Einhard. Note: Charles was large and strong, and of lofty stature, though not disproportionately tall...the upper part of his head was round, his eyes very large and animated, nose a little long, hair fair, and face laughing and merry. Thus his appearance was always stately and dignified...although his neck was thick and somewhat short, and his belly rather prominent; but the symmetry of the rest of his body concealed these defects. His gait was firm, his whole carriage manly, and his voice clear, but not so strong as his size led one to expect. His health was excellent, except during the four years preceding his death...In accordance with the national custom, he took frequent exercise on horseback and in the chase, accomplishments in which scarcely any people in the world can equal the Franks. He enjoyed the exhalations from natural warm springs, and often practiced swimming, in which he was such as adept that none could surpass him; and hence it was that he built his palace at Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen), and lived there constantly during his latter years until him death. He used not only to invite his sons to his bath, but his nobles and friends, and now and then a troop of his retinue or bodyguard.-- Charlemagne is considered the most famous ruler of the Middle Ages. A key figure in European history, he conquered much of western Europe and united it under a great empire. His activities laid the foundation of the European civilization that arose during the later Middle Ages. He ruled a vast rural world dotted with isolated estates and characterized by constant petty violence. His empire was a collection of primitive peoples and semi-barbaric tribes. Trade and commerce played only a small part in the economy, nearly everyone engaged in agriculture. By constant travel, personal appearances, and the sheer force of his personality, Charlemagne sought to awe conquered peoples with his fierce presence and terrible justice. History is fortunate in that Charlemagne's first biographer, Einhard (who knew him well), presented a fairly complete picture of the man. Because of that, we have a good idea of his politics, beliefs, and his daily life. For instance, Einhard painted a realistic picture of Charlemagne riding along the roads of France with his wife and his sons by his side and his daughters "following in the rear," trying to keep his daughters from the wooing of young men in his home; "almost hating" his doctors because they would not let him enjoy the roast meat which he loved, because they prescribed the boiled stuff which he hated; devoutly obeying his church but bitterly complaining of those many fast days, "so bad for his health;" loving conversation, even at times "a little garrulous;" and rejoicing in sport with his friends in his great swimming pool at Aachen but stopping in the midst of his sport to discuss a problem of theology. Ref: EleanorShipley Duckett, Alfred the Great, the King and His England (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 203. Charlemagne's physical features included a height probably over six feet, with piercing eyes, fair hair, a thick neck, and a potbelly. He was strong, fond of exercise, and had an alert mind and a forceful personality. Charlemagne could read and speak Latin, which was the language of educated people of his time. He never learned to write Latin. The strength of Charlemagne's personality was evidently rooted in the unbroken conviction of being "at one" with the divine will. He was able to combine personal piety with enjoyment of life, a religious sense of mission with a strong will to power, tough manners with a striving for intellectual growth, and a refusal to compromise with his enemies with a strong moral uprightness. When Charlemagne became sole ruler in 771, he immediately began expanding the kingdom. He conquered Lombardy and Bavaria, and reached into eastern Europe for land and treasures. He waged a 30 year campaign against the Saxons of northwest Germany, finally subduing them and forcing them to accept Christianity. In Spain, returning from an expedition in 778, he was ambushed by the Basques, which decimated his rear guard. This incident became the subject of the famous epic poem, "The Song of Roland." By 800, Charlemagne's realm extended from central Italy north to Denmark, and from eastern Germany west to the Atlantic Ocean. Throughout his reign, Charlemagne followed a policy of friendship and cooperation with the Christian church. He protected the Church and continually extended its power. In recognition of his vast power, and to strengthen the king's alliance with the Church, Pope Leo III crowned him Emperor of the Romans. This act led to the birth of the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted in some form until 1806. Reforms instituted by Charlemagne included these. He granted large estates to loyal nobles, who, in turn, provided military and political services to the king. The nobles also maintained the roads, bridges, and fortifications on their land. This arrangement, called feudalism, became the basic political and military system of Europe for the next 400 years. Charlemagne helped increase food supplies by introducing more efficient methods of farming. To stimulate trade, he coined silver money and encouraged the establishment of markets. Charlemagne was devoted to justice and good government. Courts were held regularly, and decisions were made only on accepted law. He improved education and culture by establishing a school at his palace in Aachen, training clergy and educators who then traveled and taught throughout the kingdom. The scholars at the school developed a type of handwriting which later became the model for printing. By the time Charlemagne died in 814, his empire had started to fall apart. Attacks by Vikings and other invaders weakened the kingdom, and in 843, his grandsons divided it into three parts. By the late 800's, the empire ceased to exist. However, the cultural revival begun by Charlemagne had a lasting effect on European civilization. His last words were, "Now, Lord, into thy hands I commit my spirit." BIRTH: Also shown as Born 29 Mar 742 DEATH: Also shown as Died 24 Jan 814 BURIAL: Also shown as Buried , Notre Dame, D'aix La Chapelle, Austrasia.
Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire
- --Other Fields THE ROYAL LINE - CHART PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK STAKE GENEALOGICAL BOARD THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY DAINTS CENTENNIAL EXHIBITION - MARCH 1936 Compiled from - "The Kinship of families" by Archibald F. Bennett "Adam to New Chart" by Mrs. Eva Sells Jaeger "Europe's Royal Family Tree" by E. L. Sandberg "Pedigree of Joseph Smith, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D Roosevelt" by Karl Weiss "Present Time and Prophecies" by James H. Anderson Bible, Pearl of Great Price Secular History (Notice - These copies are presented to you with some misspelling and ommission due to human errors. We offer it as a challenge to anyone to correct them.) Abraham 3:23 - "And God saw these souls that that were good and He said, I will make these my rulers." --------------- House of Pepin Dynasty of Charlemagne by Ed Stephan (Map of Anglo-Saxon Kingdom (Great Britian), (Europe) - Saxons, Austrasia (Germany), Bethenia, Neustra, Burgundy, Carinthia, Kembar, Provence, Aquitaine (France), (Italy) Moslems (Spain/Portugal)) Authorities - 1. History of England, Larson, p. 57 and 176. 2. Leading Facts French History. Montegomery, p. 300. 3. Allstrom's Dictionary. Royal Lineage, p. 326-419-328-575 4. Hume History of England Vol. I, p. 136 5. Complete Peerage by C. E. C., Vol. 6 p. 345 6. Bank Baronage in Fee Vol. 1 p. 211 Omerode Cheshire, Vol. III. p. 88 7. Complete Peerage, G.E.C. 8. Complete Peerage, G.E.C. 9. Coppingers Manors in Suffolk. Vol. 2, p. 77 10. Visiliation of Norfolk, V I, pg. 79 11. Owens and Blakenaye Shrewsbury, Vol. II. p. 129 12. Shropshire Archaeilogy Vol. 44, p. 15 (Sir Wm. Burley was Speaker, House of Commons. (1422 and 1464) 12. Visitation Staffordshire, 1382. -------------------- Line of Ephriam. The father of modern government and public eduction. Charlemagne was married four times and had six wives by arrangements of brevet. We descend thrugh wife three, Hildegarde, who died April 30, 783. http://www.ancestry.myfamily.com/library/ YOU ARE DESCENDED FROM ROYALTY - Every time I think about finding kings and queens in the family tree, I create a mental image of the would-be social climbers of years ago who researched family trees in hopes of proving themselves to be "better" than the average person. How little they knew. It seems that the "average person" also has royal ancestry. In fact, there is nothing more common than having a few bluebloods in the family tree. Lisa Oberg and George Anderson both sent e-mails this week telling me about a fascinating article in the May 2002 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. That issue contains an article by Steve Olson, called "The Royal We: The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne." In the article, Olsen describes his own search for his Irish ancestors. He goes on to detail what he learned from Mark Humphrys, a computer scientist at Dublin City University, as well as from some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. In short, everyone of European descent has royal ancestry. Chang's mathematical model makes the case for the number of ancestors that each of us has: "The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors - a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived." The article goes on at some length to explain the realities of migration patterns and intermarriage within small communities. Olsen writes, "The number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, 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." Another preconceived idea that needs to be shattered is that royalty only married royalty, and therefore, commoners would not likely have royal blood in their veins. Humphrys says, "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant." Steve Olson's article in The Atlantic is very interesting, and I would suggest that every genealogist read it in its entirety at: Professor Joseph Chang's paper is a bit more difficult for non-mathematicians to read. It is available at: www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/pubs/Ancestors.pdf . The best quote of all came from Mark Humphrys: "You can ask whether everyone in the Western world is descended from Charlemagne, and the answer is yes, we're all descended from Charlemagne. But can you prove it? That's the game of genealogy." ------------------------------ THE ROYAL WE - May 2002 Atlantic Monthly The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne by Steve Olson. A few years ago the Genealogical Office in Dublin moved from a back room of the Heraldic Museum up the street to the National Library. The old office wasn't big enough for all the people stopping by to track down their Irish ancestors, and even the new, much larger office is often crowded. Because of its history of oppression and Catholic fecundity, Ireland has been a remarkably productive exporter of people. The population of the island has never exceeded 10 million, but more than 70 million people worldwide claim Irish ancestry. On warm summer days, as tourists throng nearby Trinity College and Dublin Castle, the line of visitors waiting to consult one of the office's professional genealogists can stretch out the door. I suspect that many people have had a fling with genealogy somewhat like mine. In my office I have a file containing the scattered lines of Olsons and Taylors, Richmans and Sigginses (my Irish ancestors), that I gathered several years ago in a paroxysm of family-mindedness. For the most part my ancestors were a steady stream of farmers, ministers, and malcontents. Yet a few of the Old World lines hint at something grander-they include a couple of knights, and even a baron. I've never taken the trouble to find out, but I bet with a little work I could achieve that nirvana of genealogical research, demonstrated descent from a royal family. Earlier this year I went to Dublin to learn more about the Irish side of my family and to talk about genealogy with Mark Humphrys, a young computer scientist at Dublin City University. Humphrys has dark hair, deep-blue eyes, heavily freckled arms, and a pasty complexion. He became interested in genealogy as a teenager, after hearing romantic stories about his ancestors' roles in rebellions against the English. But when he tried to trace his family further into the past, the trail ran cold. The Penal Laws imposed by England in the early eighteenth century forbade Irish Catholics from buying land or joining professions, which meant that very few permanent records of their existence were generated. "Irish people of Catholic descent are almost completely cut off from the past," Humphrys told me, as we sat in his office overlooking a busy construction site. (Dublin City University, which specializes in information technology and the life sciences, is growing as rapidly as the northern Dublin suburb in which it is located.) "The great irony about Ireland is that even though we have this long, rich history, almost no person of Irish-Catholic descent can directly connect to that history." While a graduate student at Cambridge University, Humphrys fell in love with and married an English woman, and investigating her genealogy proved more fruitful. Her family knew that they were descended from an illegitimate son of the tenth Earl of Pembroke. After just a couple of hours in the Cambridge library, Humphrys showed that the Earl of Pembroke was a direct descendant of Edward III, making Humphrys' wife the King's great-granddaughter twenty generations removed. Humphrys began to gather other genealogical tidbits related to English royalty. Many of the famous Irish rebels he'd learned about in school turned out to have ancestors who had married into prominent Protestant families, which meant they were descended from English royalty. The majority of American presidents were also of royal descent, as were many of the well-known families of Europe. Humphrys began to notice something odd. Whenever a reliable family tree was available, almost anyone of European ancestry turned out to be descended from English royalty-even such unlikely people as Hermann Göring and Daniel Boone. Humphrys began to think that such descent was the rule rather than the exception in the Western world, even if relatively few people had the documents to demonstrate it. Humphrys compiled his family genealogies first on paper and then using computers. He did much of his work on royal genealogies in the mid-1990s, when the World Wide Web was just coming into general use. He began to put his findings on Web pages, with hyperlinks connecting various lines of descent. Suddenly dense networks of ancestry jumped out at him. "I'd known these descents were interconnected, but I'd never known how much," he told me. "You can't see the connections reading the printed genealogies, because it's so hard to jump from tree to tree. The problem is that genealogies aren't two-dimensional, so any attempt to put them on paper is more or less doomed from the start. They aren't three-dimensional, either, or you could make a structure. They have hundreds of dimensions." Much of Humphrys's genealogical research now appears on his Web page "Royal Descents of Famous People." Sitting in his office, I asked him to show me how it works. He clicked on the name Walt Disney. Up popped a genealogy done by Brigitte Gastel Lloyd (Humphrys links to the work of others whenever possible) showing the twenty-two generations separating Disney from Edward I. Humphrys pointed at the screen. "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant." The idea that virtually anyone with a European ancestor descends from English royalty seems bizarre, but it accords perfectly with some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations-two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents-but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors-a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived. In a 1999 paper titled "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang showed how to reconcile the potentially huge number of our ancestors with the quantities of people who actually lived in the past. His model is a mathematical proof that relies on such abstractions as Poisson distributions and Markov chains, but it can readily be applied to the real world. Under the conditions laid out in his paper, the most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past-only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang's model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, 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. Chang's model incorporates one crucial assumption: random mating in the part of the world under consideration. For example, every person in Europe would have to have an equal chance of marrying every other European of the opposite sex. As Chang acknowledges in his paper, random mating clearly does not occur in reality; an Englishman is much likelier to marry a woman from England than a woman from Italy, and a princess is much likelier to marry a prince than a pauper. These departures from randomness must push back somewhat the date of Europeans' most recent common ancestor. But Humphrys's Web page suggests that over many generations mating patterns may be much more random than expected. Social mobility accounts for part of the mixing-what Voltaire called the slippered feet going down the stairs as the hobnailed boots ascend them. At the same time, revolutions overturn established orders, countries invade and colonize other countries, and people sometimes choose mates from far away rather than from next door. Even the world's most isolated peoples-Pacific islanders, for example-continually exchange potential mates with neighboring groups. This constant churning of people makes it possible to apply Chang's analysis to the world as a whole. For example, almost everyone in the New World must be descended from English royalty-even people of predominantly African or Native American ancestry, because of the long history of intermarriage in the Americas. Similarly, everyone of European ancestry must descend from Muhammad. The line of descent for which records exist is through the daughter of the Emir of Seville, who is reported to have converted from Islam to Catholicism in about 1200. But many other, unrecorded descents must also exist. Chang's model has even more dramatic implications. Because people are always migrating from continent to continent, networks of descent quickly interconnect. This means that the most recent common ancestor of all six billion people on earth today probably lived just a couple of thousand years ago. And not long before that the majority of the people on the planet were the direct ancestors of everyone alive today. Confucius, Nefertiti, and just about any other ancient historical figure who was even moderately prolific must today be counted among everyone's ancestors. Toward the end of our conversation Humphrys pointed out something I hadn't considered. The same process works going forward in time; in essence every one of us who has children and whose line does not go extinct is suspended at the center of an immense genetic hourglass. Just as we are descended from most of the people alive on the planet a few thousand years ago, several thousand years hence each of us will be an ancestor of the entire human race-or of no one at all. The dense interconnectedness of the human family might seem to take some of the thrill out of genealogical research. Sure, I was able to show in the Genealogical Office that my Siggins ancestors are descended from the fourteenth-century Syggens of County Wexford; but I'm also descended from most of the other people who lived in Ireland in the fourteenth century. Humphrys took issue with my disillusionment. It's true that everyone's roots go back to the same family tree, he said. But each path to our common past is different, and reconstructing that path, using whatever records are available, is its own reward. "You can ask whether everyone in the Western world is descended from Charlemagne, and the answer is yes, we're all descended from Charlemagne. But can you prove it? That's the game of genealogy." -------------------------------- Charlemagne descends by fifteen generations to Eleanor of Castile, who married Edward I, of England. Eighteen generations descended we come to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, a direct descendant on this line from Antenor. EVEN: Rgn Date: BET. 800 - 814 Place: Holy Roman Empire EVEN: Acceded Date: 768 Ref Number: 5585 THE ROYAL LINE - CHART PREPARED FOR THE NEW YORK STAKE GENEALOGICAL BOARD THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY DAINTS CENTENNIAL EXHIBITION - MARCH 1936 Compiled from - "The Kinship of families" by Archibald F. Bennett "Adam to New Chart" by Mrs. Eva Sells Jaeger "Europe's Royal Family Tree" by E. L. Sandberg "Pedigree of Joseph Smith, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D Roosevelt" by Karl Weiss "Present Time and Prophecies" by James H. Anderson Bible, Pearl of Great Price Secular History (Notice - These copies are presented to you with some misspelling and ommission due to human errors. We offer it as a challenge to anyone to correct them.) Abraham 3:23 - "And God saw these souls that that were good and He said, I will make these my rulers." --------------- House of Pepin Dynasty of Charlemagne by Ed Stephan (Map of Anglo-Saxon Kingdom (Great Britian), (Europe) - Saxons, Austrasia (Germany), Bethenia, Neustra, Burgundy, Carinthia, Kembar, Provence, Aquitaine (France), (Italy) Moslems (Spain/Portugal)) Authorities - 1. History of England, Larson, p. 57 and 176. 2. Leading Facts French History. Montegomery, p. 300. 3. Allstrom's Dictionary. Royal Lineage, p. 326-419-328-575 4. Hume History of England Vol. I, p. 136 5. Complete Peerage by C. E. C., Vol. 6 p. 345 6. Bank Baronage in Fee Vol. 1 p. 211 Omerode Cheshire, Vol. III. p. 88 7. Complete Peerage, G.E.C. 8. Complete Peerage, G.E.C. 9. Coppingers Manors in Suffolk. Vol. 2, p. 77 10. Visiliation of Norfolk, V I, pg. 79 11. Owens and Blakenaye Shrewsbury, Vol. II. p. 129 12. Shropshire Archaeilogy Vol. 44, p. 15 (Sir Wm. Burley was Speaker, House of Commons. (1422 and 1464) 12. Visitation Staffordshire, 1382. -------------------- Line of Ephriam. The father of modern government and public eduction. Charlemagne was married four times and had six wives by arrangements of brevet. We descend thrugh wife three, Hildegarde, who died April 30, 783. http://www.ancestry.myfamily.com/library/ YOU ARE DESCENDED FROM ROYALTY - Every time I think about finding kings and queens in the family tree, I create a mental image of the would-be social climbers of years ago who researched family trees in hopes of proving themselves to be "better" than the average person. How little they knew. It seems that the "average person" also has royal ancestry. In fact, there is nothing more common than having a few bluebloods in the family tree. Lisa Oberg and George Anderson both sent e-mails this week telling me about a fascinating article in the May 2002 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. That issue contains an article by Steve Olson, called "The Royal We: The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne." In the article, Olsen describes his own search for his Irish ancestors. He goes on to detail what he learned from Mark Humphrys, a computer scientist at Dublin City University, as well as from some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. In short, everyone of European descent has royal ancestry. Chang's mathematical model makes the case for the number of ancestors that each of us has: "The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors - a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived." The article goes on at some length to explain the realities of migration patterns and intermarriage within small communities. Olsen writes, "The number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, 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." Another preconceived idea that needs to be shattered is that royalty only married royalty, and therefore, commoners would not likely have royal blood in their veins. Humphrys says, "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant." Steve Olson's article in The Atlantic is very interesting, and I would suggest that every genealogist read it in its entirety at: Professor Joseph Chang's paper is a bit more difficult for non-mathematicians to read. It is available at: www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/pubs/Ancestors.pdf . The best quote of all came from Mark Humphrys: "You can ask whether everyone in the Western world is descended from Charlemagne, and the answer is yes, we're all descended from Charlemagne. But can you prove it? That's the game of genealogy." ------------------------------ THE ROYAL WE - May 2002 Atlantic Monthly The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne by Steve Olson. A few years ago the Genealogical Office in Dublin moved from a back room of the Heraldic Museum up the street to the National Library. The old office wasn't big enough for all the people stopping by to track down their Irish ancestors, and even the new, much larger office is often crowded. Because of its history of oppression and Catholic fecundity, Ireland has been a remarkably productive exporter of people. The population of the island has never exceeded 10 million, but more than 70 million people worldwide claim Irish ancestry. On warm summer days, as tourists throng nearby Trinity College and Dublin Castle, the line of visitors waiting to consult one of the office's professional genealogists can stretch out the door. I suspect that many people have had a fling with genealogy somewhat like mine. In my office I have a file containing the scattered lines of Olsons and Taylors, Richmans and Sigginses (my Irish ancestors), that I gathered several years ago in a paroxysm of family-mindedness. For the most part my ancestors were a steady stream of farmers, ministers, and malcontents. Yet a few of the Old World lines hint at something grander-they include a couple of knights, and even a baron. I've never taken the trouble to find out, but I bet with a little work I could achieve that nirvana of genealogical research, demonstrated descent from a royal family. Earlier this year I went to Dublin to learn more about the Irish side of my family and to talk about genealogy with Mark Humphrys, a young computer scientist at Dublin City University. Humphrys has dark hair, deep-blue eyes, heavily freckled arms, and a pasty complexion. He became interested in genealogy as a teenager, after hearing romantic stories about his ancestors' roles in rebellions against the English. But when he tried to trace his family further into the past, the trail ran cold. The Penal Laws imposed by England in the early eighteenth century forbade Irish Catholics from buying land or joining professions, which meant that very few permanent records of their existence were generated. "Irish people of Catholic descent are almost completely cut off from the past," Humphrys told me, as we sat in his office overlooking a busy construction site. (Dublin City University, which specializes in information technology and the life sciences, is growing as rapidly as the northern Dublin suburb in which it is located.) "The great irony about Ireland is that even though we have this long, rich history, almost no person of Irish-Catholic descent can directly connect to that history." While a graduate student at Cambridge University, Humphrys fell in love with and married an English woman, and investigating her genealogy proved more fruitful. Her family knew that they were descended from an illegitimate son of the tenth Earl of Pembroke. After just a couple of hours in the Cambridge library, Humphrys showed that the Earl of Pembroke was a direct descendant of Edward III, making Humphrys' wife the King's great-granddaughter twenty generations removed. Humphrys began to gather other genealogical tidbits related to English royalty. Many of the famous Irish rebels he'd learned about in school turned out to have ancestors who had married into prominent Protestant families, which meant they were descended from English royalty. The majority of American presidents were also of royal descent, as were many of the well-known families of Europe. Humphrys began to notice something odd. Whenever a reliable family tree was available, almost anyone of European ancestry turned out to be descended from English royalty-even such unlikely people as Hermann Göring and Daniel Boone. Humphrys began to think that such descent was the rule rather than the exception in the Western world, even if relatively few people had the documents to demonstrate it. Humphrys compiled his family genealogies first on paper and then using computers. He did much of his work on royal genealogies in the mid-1990s, when the World Wide Web was just coming into general use. He began to put his findings on Web pages, with hyperlinks connecting various lines of descent. Suddenly dense networks of ancestry jumped out at him. "I'd known these descents were interconnected, but I'd never known how much," he told me. "You can't see the connections reading the printed genealogies, because it's so hard to jump from tree to tree. The problem is that genealogies aren't two-dimensional, so any attempt to put them on paper is more or less doomed from the start. They aren't three-dimensional, either, or you could make a structure. They have hundreds of dimensions." Much of Humphrys's genealogical research now appears on his Web page "Royal Descents of Famous People." Sitting in his office, I asked him to show me how it works. He clicked on the name Walt Disney. Up popped a genealogy done by Brigitte Gastel Lloyd (Humphrys links to the work of others whenever possible) showing the twenty-two generations separating Disney from Edward I. Humphrys pointed at the screen. "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant." The idea that virtually anyone with a European ancestor descends from English royalty seems bizarre, but it accords perfectly with some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations-two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents-but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors-a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived. In a 1999 paper titled "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang showed how to reconcile the potentially huge number of our ancestors with the quantities of people who actually lived in the past. His model is a mathematical proof that relies on such abstractions as Poisson distributions and Markov chains, but it can readily be applied to the real world. Under the conditions laid out in his paper, the most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past-only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang's model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, 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. Chang's model incorporates one crucial assumption: random mating in the part of the world under consideration. For example, every person in Europe would have to have an equal chance of marrying every other European of the opposite sex. As Chang acknowledges in his paper, random mating clearly does not occur in reality; an Englishman is much likelier to marry a woman from England than a woman from Italy, and a princess is much likelier to marry a prince than a pauper. These departures from randomness must push back somewhat the date of Europeans' most recent common ancestor. But Humphrys's Web page suggests that over many generations mating patterns may be much more random than expected. Social mobility accounts for part of the mixing-what Voltaire called the slippered feet going down the stairs as the hobnailed boots ascend them. At the same time, revolutions overturn established orders, countries invade and colonize other countries, and people sometimes choose mates from far away rather than from next door. Even the world's most isolated peoples-Pacific islanders, for example-continually exchange potential mates with neighboring groups. This constant churning of people makes it possible to apply Chang's analysis to the world as a whole. For example, almost everyone in the New World must be descended from English royalty-even people of predominantly African or Native American ancestry, because of the long history of intermarriage in the Americas. Similarly, everyone of European ancestry must descend from Muhammad. The line of descent for which records exist is through the daughter of the Emir of Seville, who is reported to have converted from Islam to Catholicism in about 1200. But many other, unrecorded descents must also exist. Chang's model has even more dramatic implications. Because people are always migrating from continent to continent, networks of descent quickly interconnect. This means that the most recent common ancestor of all six billion people on earth today probably lived just a couple of thousand years ago. And not long before that the majority of the people on the planet were the direct ancestors of everyone alive today. Confucius, Nefertiti, and just about any other ancient historical figure who was even moderately prolific must today be counted among everyone's ancestors. Toward the end of our conversation Humphrys pointed out something I hadn't considered. The same process works going forward in time; in essence every one of us who has children and whose line does not go extinct is suspended at the center of an immense genetic hourglass. Just as we are descended from most of the people alive on the planet a few thousand years ago, several thousand years hence each of us will be an ancestor of the entire human race-or of no one at all. The dense interconnectedness of the human family might seem to take some of the thrill out of genealogical research. Sure, I was able to show in the Genealogical Office that my Siggins ancestors are descended from the fourteenth-century Syggens of County Wexford; but I'm also descended from most of the other people who lived in Ireland in the fourteenth century. Humphrys took issue with my disillusionment. It's true that everyone's roots go back to the same family tree, he said. But each path to our common past is different, and reconstructing that path, using whatever records are available, is its own reward. "You can ask whether everyone in the Western world is descended from Charlemagne, and the answer is yes, we're all descended from Charlemagne. But can you prove it? That's the game of genealogy." -------------------------------- Charlemagne descends by fifteen generations to Eleanor of Castile, who married Edward I, of England. Eighteen generations descended we come to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, a direct descendant on this line from Antenor. Ref: House of Israel by E. L. Whitehead pg. 574 MARR DATE 0770 (DIV) Ref: Colonial and Revolutionary Lineages of America 973.D2ah Vol. 2 - In the early part of his reign, invaded Northern Italy, putting an end to the Lombard kingdom. From 774 to 799 he was at war withthe Saxons, at that time a heathen race east of the Rhine. In 785, Widukind, Saxon leader, submitted and was baptized a Christian, but resistance continued in the outlying portions of the region. Bavaria was next annexed and this brought Charlemagne in conflict with the Avars whose Khan became a Christian in 805. Expeditions were also sent against the Arabs of North Spain. In 800, while in Rome, Charlemagne was crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day, thus reviving the Roman Empire. After a naval war in the Adriatic, in which he surrendered some disputed territory, Charlemagne was saluted by the Greek envoys as Basaileus, Charlemagne witnessed a revival of arts and letters, a revision of Frankish law and thewriting of the laws of Saxons, Thuringians, and Frisians. Also known as Carolus Magus and Charles I, "The Great." The ghost of Charlemagne haunts a wide span of medieval history. This is not the place to discuss exactly what his coronation by Pope Leo III in Rome on Christmas Day 800 signified to the participants. It is enough that a new emperor appeared in the west in contrast to the dynamic continuity of the Byzantine Empire in the eastern Mediterranean, which continued the state established by Augustus down to 1453. The Empire of Charlemagne comprised what we now call France and West Germany as well as the Low Countries, Switzerland, northern Italy and part of Spain. This burden was beyond the capacity of his successors; but in any case the Frankish or Germanic tradition was for division between the surviving sons of a parent. As has been seen, the Treaty of Verdun in 843 arranged a partition into three which later events have made memorable. Germany fell to the share of Louis; but none of his three sons had legitimate issue, though one bastard grandson, Arnulf, became ruler of Germany. Meanwhile the style of emperor had passed to ever more limp and shadowy figures among the descendantsof the great and vigorous Charlemagne. His triumph had been a personal one; nor indeed was the idea of empire consonant with the practice of subdivision of estates. Ref: Einhard, The Life of Charlemagne, with a forward by S. Painter (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1960), pp. 50-51. A precise description of Charlemagne has been given to us by his secretary and biographer, the Saxon Einhard. Note: Charles was large and strong, and of lofty stature, though not disproportionately tall...the upper part of his head was round, his eyes very large and animated, nose a little long, hair fair, and face laughing and merry. Thus his appearance was always stately and dignified...although his neck was thick and somewhat short, and his belly rather prominent; but the symmetry of the rest of his body concealed these defects. His gait was firm, his whole carriage manly, and his voice clear, but not so strong as his size led one to expect. His health was excellent, except during the four years preceding his death...In accordance with the national custom, he took frequent exercise on horseback and in the chase, accomplishments in which scarcely any people in the world can equal the Franks. He enjoyed the exhalations from natural warm springs, and often practiced swimming, in which he was such as adept that none could surpass him; and hence it was that he built his palace at Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen), and lived there constantly during his latter years until him death. He used not only to invite his sons to his bath, but his nobles and friends, and now and then a troop of his retinue or bodyguard.-- Charlemagne is considered the most famous ruler of the Middle Ages. A key figure in European history, he conquered much of western Europe and united it under a great empire. His activities laid the foundation of the European civilization that arose during the later Middle Ages. He ruled a vast rural world dotted with isolated estates and characterized by constant petty violence. His empire was a collection of primitive peoples and semi-barbaric tribes. Trade and commerce played only a small part in the economy, nearly everyone engaged in agriculture. By constant travel, personal appearances, and the sheer force of his personality, Charlemagne sought to awe conquered peoples with his fierce presence and terrible justice. History is fortunate in that Charlemagne's first biographer, Einhard (who knew him well), presented a fairly complete picture of the man. Because of that, we have a good idea of his politics, beliefs, and his daily life. For instance, Einhard painted a realistic picture of Charlemagne riding along the roads of France with his wife and his sons by his side and his daughters "following in the rear," trying to keep his daughters from the wooing of young men in his home; "almost hating" his doctors because they would not let him enjoy the roast meat which he loved, because they prescribed the boiled stuff which he hated; devoutly obeying his church but bitterly complaining of those many fast days, "so bad for his health;" loving conversation, even at times "a little garrulous;" and rejoicing in sport with his friends in his great swimming pool at Aachen but stopping in the midst of his sport to discuss a problem of theology. Ref: EleanorShipley Duckett, Alfred the Great, the King and His England (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 203. Charlemagne's physical features included a height probably over six feet, with piercing eyes, fair hair, a thick neck, and a potbelly. He was strong, fond of exercise, and had an alert mind and a forceful personality. Charlemagne could read and speak Latin, which was the language of educated people of his time. He never learned to write Latin. The strength of Charlemagne's personality was evidently rooted in the unbroken conviction of being "at one" with the divine will. He was able to combine personal piety with enjoyment of life, a religious sense of mission with a strong will to power, tough manners with a striving for intellectual growth, and a refusal to compromise with his enemies with a strong moral uprightness. When Charlemagne became sole ruler in 771, he immediately began expanding the kingdom. He conquered Lombardy and Bavaria, and reached into eastern Europe for land and treasures. He waged a 30 year campaign against the Saxons of northwest Germany, finally subduing them and forcing them to accept Christianity. In Spain, returning from an expedition in 778, he was ambushed by the Basques, which decimated his rear guard. This incident became the subject of the famous epic poem, "The Song of Roland." By 800, Charlemagne's realm extended from central Italy north to Denmark, and from eastern Germany west to the Atlantic Ocean. Throughout his reign, Charlemagne followed a policy of friendship and cooperation with the Christian church. He protected the Church and continually extended its power. In recognition of his vast power, and to strengthen the king's alliance with the Church, Pope Leo III crowned him Emperor of the Romans. This act led to the birth of the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted in some form until 1806. Reforms instituted by Charlemagne included these. He granted large estates to loyal nobles, who, in turn, provided military and political services to the king. The nobles also maintained the roads, bridges, and fortifications on their land. This arrangement, called feudalism, became the basic political and military system of Europe for the next 400 years. Charlemagne helped increase food supplies by introducing more efficient methods of farming. To stimulate trade, he coined silver money and encouraged the establishment of markets. Charlemagne was devoted to justice and good government. Courts were held regularly, and decisions were made only on accepted law. He improved education and culture by establishing a school at his palace in Aachen, training clergy and educators who then traveled and taught throughout the kingdom. The scholars at the school developed a type of handwriting which later became the model for printing. By the time Charlemagne died in 814, his empire had started to fall apart. Attacks by Vikings and other invaders weakened the kingdom, and in 843, his grandsons divided it into three parts. By the late 800's, the empire ceased to exist. However, the cultural revival begun by Charlemagne had a lasting effect on European civilization. His last words were, "Now, Lord, into thy hands I commit my spirit." BIRTH: Also shown as Born 29 Mar 742 DEATH: Also shown as Died 24 Jan 814 BURIAL: Also shown as Buried , Notre Dame, D'aix La Chapelle, Austrasia.
-
Sources - [S627] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Unknown (Reliability: 3).
- [S895] NS291641.
- [S894] Charlton.FTW.
- [S868] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Ancestral File (TM), (June 1998 (c), data as of 5 JAN 1998).
- [S896] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Ancestral File (R), (Copyright (c) 1987, June 1998, data as of 5 January 1998).
- [S627] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Unknown (Reliability: 3).
This site powered by The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding v. 14.0.3, written by Darrin Lythgoe © 2001-2024.
Maintained by Michael A. Kennedy.