It's an incorrect opinion. You've confused two things. I don't believe in lines going back to Adam either. However, I canverify using modern genealogical standards, my line back to medievalroyalty and that royalty back to the early dark ages (about 400-600A.D.). So it is real genealogy and real history.Given Martin's expertise in genealogy, it is highly likely that his pedigreeis as accurate as possible, but unfortunately not all of the claimantsto genealogical validity have the same degree of expertise. I applaudthose, like Martin, who have the intellectual tools to research Medievalgenealogy, but before anyone makes such a claim, it would be a goodidea if they are careful that they did not just copy the information outof an online database.
Normally a "pedigree" show father/son/daughter or mother/son/daughterrelationships. What I meant by real genealogy, is the documenting ofactual family relationships to the extent historically possible. Thecommentator raises the issue of both the accuracy of his own genealogyand that of the traditional royal lines back as far as 400 A.D. What Imeant by my comment that royalty had descendants was just that. Royaltyhad children just like the rest of our ancestors and it is possible tobe related to royalty. My comments go to the accuracy of the earlyrecords and the fact that traditional royal genealogies are not alwayshistorically accurate.
Read more...
Comments