Many genealogies, including mine, include the genealogy of royal lines. It is in this light that this page is devoted, in spite of my wanderings above. Are royal genealogies accurate? Are they totally accurate? Are they the result of myths, which have no factual basis?
Many genealogists believe that the early royal genealogies were the fabrication of priests, who altered the records they discovered by making the royals the descendants of Noah, yet they easily accept the royal descents from Charlemagne. The early Britons, the Irish and the Scots claim descent from Biblical persons. The legends have persisted now for centuries.
Early British kings claimed descent from Brutus, king of Britain who died about 1091 BC. Brutus was said to have descended from Trojan royalty and subsequently from the loins of Noah, whose descendants made their way to Troy in the time of the Trojan War. Irish legends and subsequently Scottish lines, claim royal descent from Milesius, King of Spain, husband of Scota, Princess of Egypt. The Welsh also have legends, which claim descent from Noah, while Charlemagne, the father of all European nobility, claims descent from Adam.
At what point do we make the transition from accurate royal genealogies into the realm of myth?
My maternal grandfather died in 1965, over three hundred years after his immigrant grandfather landed on the shores of New Amsterdam, yet he knew he was of Dutch descent through his mother. He also knew he was of English descent through his father. He was as certain of his Dutch descent as my father was of his Irish descent and my father knew his grandfather, who had immigrated from Ireland. My maternal grandmother knew she was of Scot-Irish descent, though her immigrant grandfather had arrived in Philadelphia almost two hundred years before she was born. How was this information retained? Obviously, it was in the form of myth, a story, which had been repeated from generation to generation. Originally, of course, the information included names and stories of the immigration as well as stories of the family's time in Ireland and perhaps even in Scotland. The "myth" continued until only the kernel remained, that the family had come to America from Ireland and that they were Scots.
Our ancient royal ancestors had the advantage of bards, specially trained individuals, often in the hereditary position of retaining the ancestry of the royal families. These bards were trained from youth in the memorization of the family stories, the ancestry of the family. They held positions in the family of great importance and the genealogy of the family was their "job". It is my belief that the "legends" or "myths", which record the genealogies of the royal families are probably as accurate as any genealogy.
Many genealogists feel that the ancestors of the "legends", with their god-like, fable-like abilities could not possibly be references to actual human beings. I believe that kernels of truth lie in the myths or legends of peoples. The hero becoming larger than life and given god-like abilities does not lessen the hero's existence.
In genealogy, we sometimes find that an ancestor who left the family and moved to another location, is shown as dead in the family records. As Mark Twain has stated, "the legend of the death is greatly exaggerated." Because the ancestor disappeared, their death has been assumed by succeeding generations, when in actuality, the ancestor lived another fifty years in another location.
As careful as the genealogist is, mistakes are made. Genealogy is a subjective study at best. However, though Ann Jones (of my prior example) has been connected to the incorrect father, the lineage works out to be the same. Within a couple of generations, the mistake corrects itself. We can only hope that Thomas, as well as Jack, not to mention Ann, forgive us for the mistake.
Perhaps because I have always enjoyed history, I began to question my family about our roots when I was about ten. To my knowledge, none of my immediate family had an interest in genealogy and no one had done any research, so it wasn't laid out for me. My father and his father knew that my great-grandfather had come to America from Ireland and that he had married an Irish girl. My paternal grandmother knew that she was "Scotch-Irish" and English. My maternal grandmother knew that she was "Scotch-Irish", and my maternal grandfather knew that he was English and Dutch. None of my grandparents knew anything beyond the names of their grandparents and my paternal grandmother only knew the names of her parents and one grandmother. I was content with this information until I was about twenty, when I began to read about the study of genealogy.
Now, almost thirty years later, and largely due to the Internet, I have compiled a rather lengthy genealogy, including that of my husband. I work both lines simultaneously to the point that I sometimes forget which is my line and which is his. Much of the genealogical information was given to me during the period of my research. When I first began the research, librarians were extremely helpful, not only sending me information from their libraries but also giving me names of other researchers they had met who were researching the same lines. County clerks would send information along with an invoice and often sent information free of charge. The advent of "Roots" made a substantial change in information via the mail. Libraries began to send notices that they could no longer perform searches for people and county clerks, as a whole, began to be much more business-like in dealing with genealogists. The professional genealogist profited as requests for information led to a printed list of local genealogists who, for a fee, would be happy to look through local libraries and court houses.
The Internet, largely to the efforts of such people as Roots Web and others who offer information for free, have made genealogical information much more available to people and many people have made their genealogical research available on the Internet. Personally, I feel that the information I have gained over the years has been largely due to the kindness of others and therefore, I am happy to share all I have. Some genealogists seem to feel that the time and effort they have put into genealogical research is their personal possession, a result of hours of microfilm and difficult to read primary sources. There is no doubt but that a day at the library spent in microfilms is tedious and difficult. I probably average ten books for every one line I find in information and even that is often later found to be unrelated to my particular line. However, as I would share any information I find on my grandparents with all of my cousins, so I feel information I discover on my 10th or 30th grandparents also belongs to my "cousins".
Is genealogy a myth or a science? I believe it is both. Everyone in their genealogical study makes assumptions, which may or may not be accurate. Even wills are subjective in that, unless daughters are listed by married names, it is assumed that Ann Jones, mentioned in the will, is the daughter of Jack Jones based upon dates and locations. However, the Ann being linked to Jack, may actually be the daughter of Jack's second cousin, Tom, who died without leaving a will. Marriage records prior to the twentieth century are scanty at best. We have tools used in genealogical discovery, but I have no doubt but that every genealogy has incorrect assumptions. Sometimes the best we can do is to make an assumption using the best information we have. I do not believe that there is any genealogy, which is completely accurate beyond perhaps four generations.
