Ragnar "Lodbrok" Sigurdsson - 31st Great Grandfather

Where did get the info, Edward?

What is or what is the fact is difficult like King Aund that ate his sons so he could live longer and reign.
It is very similiar til Greech God Kronos who ate his sons.
There no wish to show to decend from a Norse king or warrior however the trees connect you voluntarily or unvoluntarily to tha names from the past.
In case of Lodbrok so we do know he is mention in several european chronicles. What is real and what is fact.
Is Odin a mythical person or was he a chieftain that flew with his tribe from East to West?
There are none given answers

And that, Private User, is exactly why Ragnar or anyone of the other mythical persons should not be connected to any living person today.

Ivar Beinløs, which burial site was found in 1680's was in the Angelican Chronicles father Was Lodbrok.
Ivar Benløs was a berserker and a physically extreme strong.

Private User noone is disputing that these persons are written about in the chronicles and in the sagas, what is disputed is the familyrelationship between them and the familyrelationship between them and living people of today.

This is what Stewart Baldwin writes about Ivar: "He was the historical prototype of the Ivar the Boneless of the Icelandic sagas, which, however, cannot be trusted to give any historical information about him. The only certain information about him is given in the Irish annals during the period 856-873, and his possible role as king of York, though reasonably likely, is disputed by some." (This is taken from the about me in "Ivar the Boneless" profile)

In the sagas it is also mentioned that he probably was impotent, (boneless = lack of possibility to get an erection), his Geni profile has 9 children, that is a good job of an impotent person :-) Maybe someone can clean this up so it can get more correct than what it probably is now.

In the autumn of 865, with his brothers Halfdan Ragnarsson (Halfdene) and Ubbe Ragnarsson (Hubba), Ivar led the Great Heathen Army in the invasion of the East Anglian region of England. An accommodation was quickly reached with the East Anglians. The following year, Ivar led his forces north on horseback and easily captured York (which the Danes called Jórvík) from the Northumbrians, who were engaged in a civil war at that time. Ivar and the Danes succeeded in holding York against a vain attempt to relieve the city in 867.

Ivar is attributed with the slaying of St. Edmund of East Anglia in 869. The story is first known from the Latin Passion of King Edmund written by Abbo of Fleury and its Old English adaptation by Ælfric of Eynsham. In their accounts, Edmund refused to become the vassal of a pagan and was killed in much the same way as Saint Sebastian was martyred. Ivar (called Hinguar in Ælfric's text) had Edmund bound to a tree, whereupon Vikings shot arrows into him until he died.According to later accounts, Edmund was shot in the nave of a church

There is some disagreement as to the meaning of Ivar's epithet "the Boneless" (inn Beinlausi) in the sagas. Some have suggested it was a euphemism for impotence or even a snake metaphor (he had a brother named Snake-in-the-Eye). It may have referred to an incredible physical flexibility; Ivar was a renowned warrior, and perhaps this limberness gave rise to the popular notion that he was "boneless". The poem "Háttalykill inn forni" describes Ivar as being "without any bones at all".

Alternatively, the English word "bone" is cognate with the German word "Bein", meaning "leg". Scandinavian sources mention Ivar the Boneless as being borne on a shield by his warriors. Some have speculated that this was because he could not walk and perhaps his epithet simply meant "legless"—perhaps literally or perhaps simply because he was lame. Other sources from this period, however, mention chieftains being carried on the shields of enemies after victory, not because of any infirmity.

In 1686, a farm labourer called Thomas Walker discovered a Scandinavian burial mound at Repton in Derbyshire close to a battle site where the Viking "Great Army" dispossessed the Mercian king Burgred of his kingdom. The number of partial skeletons surrounding the body, two hundred warriors and fifty women, would signify an extremely high status of the man buried there, and it has been suggested that such a burial mound would be expected to be the last resting-place for a Viking of Ivar's reputation

Here is the historical documentary about Ivar The Boneless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvGWM3Lw5RA&list=PLEF8A1C3331D7C...

I must admitt that I am suprised that you deny the possibility that these persons has existed.
It can mean only one thing that all the european chronicles are humbug and do have not credibility at all.
In that, I must for sure disagree with you.

Both Ragnar Lodbrok and his supposed father Sigurd Ring seem to be composite characters. I think it is likely they were real people, but their genealogies are suspicious. There is almost certainly some fiction, but the problem with all the old saga material is deciding where to cut and what to cut.

I my opinion is to deny that these people did excist while aware they are described in several sagas. Norwegian, dane, french, angelaeic and irish.
Are they all big bluffers and liers.
The contemporary writers of Ivar den Beinlause was monks! Not hillbillys from the montain side. Educated men describing battle scenes.
They have found burial sites that shows that what these men wrote in fact happended!

At the same pooint.
Norwegian archelogist are denid to dig up, excavete scientifically the remains of the burial chamber of Harold the Hard, who died in the battle of Stamford Brigde or excavate the church in Bergen to discover the burial Chambers of Håkon the Good.
Claim why not...lack of finances.
Amazingly enough they dig up mummies in Egypt each month. One of the poorest countries in the world.
Why do they refuse it Norway.
Not lack of capital.
Scare of finding DNA that can show there are Yngling DNA in Norway.
We have a german-danish royal court in Norway.

Kim, the men who wrote these sagas were not always monks. The sagas were composed by educated men. Those men had political reasons for making their patrons look good. The sagas are propaganda, not unbiased history. (Of course, many of the Icelandic sagas are just a good story, well told.)

Justin,
When I said monk I ment the angelican monks describing the invasion on angelican county.
Both men are described in the french chronicles.
Not only the Icelandic or the Norwegians/Scandinaviens sagas.

Yes, you are right about that. It is proof they were real. It is not proof they had the fathers and children some people say.

Prior to the Dark Ages; family persons of statue were recorded usually in the local church or equivalent family historian etc. With the Plague thinning the number of people, then the church began to record all (or most all) birth deaths etc.

Bearing in mind that whatever is recorded was done by whomsoever had
the quill pen and wrote whatever

Private User, please read what we answer you before you answer us back.

We are not disputing that these people existed or that there are written stories about them in different chronicles and sagas. They may have existed as one person or they may have been composed of several different person with similar names living approx. at the same time.

What we dispute is the familyrelationship depicted between them and the supposed familyrelationship shown from them to living people of today. These familyrelationships are not proven by the citations you quote from the different sources.

If you say you are a descendant of Ragnar Lodbrok, I would like to see sources for every link from 1850 and back to Ragnar, since it is you that need to prove the relationships in your claim. I think you are not able to prove this relationship. I'm looking forward for you proving me wrong.

Edward, my comment was not to you, but to Kim. I'm looking forward to his answer.

Here is the issue on hand as I have mentioned before.
When I established the tree sometime back it was intermingled or if you preferred merged with other three.
I come from a danish line. Through that line it says that Ragnar Lodebrok Sigurdsson is one of my ancestores.
How many of us Norwegian, Danes and Swedes are decendants from vikings?
For lot of many.
My wife trace her lines back to Harold Hairfair.
Not by me or herself. But from the museum in Land.
They might be wrong also. I do not know. Denying the fact that there is people around us that has Ynglinge DNA amoung us will also be wrong.

Ragnar "Lodbrok" Sigurdsson is my 38th great grandfather.here the thing no one can call my Lineage pure I go thru all way back to Adam and Eve. I have almost every culture in me!Plus a bunch of fictional people in my lineage.

Kim, you asked "How many of us Norwegian, Danes and Swedes are decendants from vikings?" You answered, "For lot of many."

I have a different answer -- all of us! The only question is whether we can prove it.

;)

What other viking profiles on geni are fictional characters? just wondering on which to avoid.

And ynglinga dna :P i dont think the DNA of that royal house is different then the avarage scandinavian back then.
Well it may be different if you believe the legends about that house.

Jonathan - as Remi Pedersen has kindly stated on a number of occasions it is highly unlikely that you will find any actual vikings in genealogical sources (or on geni), since in most cases there is no conclusive evidence of genealogical ties at all. Remi is on the money when he writes that it is highly unlikely that you'll find evidence of viking ancestors if you haven't a royal connection which is no earlier than around 1350.

There are, of course, exceptions, one being the Icelandic genealogical database which is based on records allegedly kept since the days of the vikings. The best anyone can hope for save for royal (and, actually proved!!) connections to for example the Fairhair dynasty is for example the old large farms of Norway, which in some cases can be proven to have belonged to the same family or branches of the same family since viking times. People didn't move around a lot back then. Another possibility is the Norse-Gaelic dynasty of Ui Imair (Descendants of -an- Ivar, it is not proven which). Also the Scottish clans connected to the Lord of the Isles-peerage are considered cadet branches of these Norse-Gaelic dynasties, which were founded by Scandinavian vikings who raided the British coasts and/or were part of the norwegian royal family (which authority then stretched to the Orkneys and Shetlands).

But basically, if you want an error margin, any Scandinavian person beyond the days of Harald Fairhair or Harald Bluetooth can be regarded as based on inconclusive historical evidence.

And as to the Ynglings - if one is adherent to criticism of sources and wants to be relatively sure about anything pertaining to Scandinavian history - one should not regard the Ynglingaätt as a scientifically proven historical dynasty.

This is a classic problem in historiography (the study of how history is written). I think it is not easily understood by genealogists.

Every scholar who studies the sagas can agree that they are a mix of fact and fiction, but no two scholars ever agree about which parts are which. Also, academic fashions change so that what scholars believed a generation ago is different from what they believe now, and different from what they will believe a generation from now.

A genealogist who wants an easy answer is going to be disappointed. You either have to take it all, or take none of it. If you try to take bits and pieces, the only way to do it is to make an arbitrary decision based on someone's opinion.

My wife is born on one of the oldest farms in Oppland, Biri, Norway and can trace her family back to Harald Hårfagre.
However the best way to prove it by taking DNA test. The problem is that there few if any remaints of Norwegian kings from the saga time.

It isn't possible to prove any relationship back to Harald Hårfagre by using DNA since we don't have Haralds Hårfagres DNA to match against, and no pure male descendants are provable.

I'm quite sure that some of the links between your wife and Harald Hårfagre will not be provable according to genealogical standards. Your first problem is here: Unknown Profile she is your wifes 10th great grandmother, according to Geni. There are no sources for such a person with this name and it looks like the sources names another woman as Laurits Bastiansen Stabel wife by the name of Karen Eilertsdatter Scholler.

The next problem in the Geni line is this person: Gyrid Eriksdatter Galtung There is no proof that she is the daughter of the father she is linked to at the moment: Eirik Sigurdson Galte

Furthermore, there is doubt about who is the father of Jon Gautsson på Ornes, Ænes and wether i cam from Ornes in Sogn or Ænes in Hardanger.

Gaute på Ornes, Ænes is not from Ænes but from Ornes and he is probably not a son of Opplandsjarl Orm Eilivsson who is probably not a son of Opplandsjarl Orm Eilivsson

And at last, there is doubt about Aalov Haraldsdatter being a daughter of Harald I "Fairhair", king of Norway

In my opinion, if this is the line you are using from your wife back to Harald Hårfagre, then you have a lot more work to do about making the links reliable.

I'm sorry, Private User, I think not. And in case you really want her to be your 34th great grandmother, you must prove every link. That they are linked here on Geni is far from any proof. Please do the job genalogically, as every familyhistorian and genealogist should do.

No, he isn't Private User that is plain wrong. Nobody is able to trace their genealogy back to Harald I "Fairhair", king of Norway since the sources aren't trustworthy enough. Do you understand this?

@yes i do understand will delite my self from this project Judy Rice

That isn't necessary, Private User, just don't add comments about your relationship to known people living a very long time ago, without being pretty sure that you really are related to them.