Ragnar "Lodbrok" Sigurdsson - Ragnar Lodbrok Sigurdsson

I could present my line of circumstantial evidence, actually partly supported by historians such as Saxo, Snorre Sturlasson, Assar and others, but yes, for now my word should be enough. Start make some digging, anyone please, and you will see the actual sources your selves from where my words are derived from.

You need modern historians, not ancient writers. People like Saxo, Snorri, Asser, etc. are the sources we have. We know there are major problems with them because they lived in a different culture with a different way of doing history than ours.

You need modern historians who have used modern historical methods to examine the evidence, analyze the problems and contradictions, then say firmly "This is almost certainly true." And further -- you need modern historians to say "The majority opinion of experts is that this is almost certainly true."

Anything short of that and you're just having a fun little romp through history.

"Anything short of that and you're just having a fun little romp through history". Yes I see that, Gorm "den Gamle", dansk konge are accepted here as the possible son of Knut, and Knut are accepted as the possible son of Svein, but that's pretty much it. Accepting Svein as the son of Sigurd is just one of the missing pieces in this already established chain.

Not an established chain. No, definitely not. A possible chain that looks attractive to some people and silly to others.

Who am I to argue with you about the Scandinavian personalities. I had to click on the links profiles and try to follow your argument.
I do not want to sound too corny. But ... let's go!
I understand your frustration!
But I tell you one thing: the concern of the curators in blocking some profiles is a healthy practice.
I will never change from the Geni to MyHeritage or FamilySearch or other genealogy system (I am user of them, but they are my labs)! I like Geni because of the zeal for profiles and because of these discussions!
I do not believe that the curators have blocked the profiles because of a political point of view. I think it's because is very painful to fix all the mess that users sometimes do. Note that often there are a curator's note explaining your reasons to block the profile. I do not know if you've tried, but you would be interesting to put their points of view to the curator to reach a consensus. Like what you're doing here.
As I told you before, I just add a profile if I have a supporting document.
In other genealogy systems, I am descendant the discoverer of Brazil because I have an ancestor, namesake of the discoverer, identified as his grandson. However, as there is no evidence that the son of the discoverer has had children, I and the curators decided to remove the link.

Anyway, except Odinkar "den store" Token, Biskop (my first cousin 34 times removed) and Knud Sigurdsson (her sister Alof is my ancestor) all other profiles mentioned by you are my direct ancestors too, by Harald "Blue Tooth" :-)

In general I share your opinion about the reasons for having certain profiles locked, but when it comes to someone who has locked incomplete profiles that contains errors or lacks necessary available information, it just looks stupid if the main reason for locking those profiles to begin with was just to avoid cleaning them up.

Add the right information in the right places, write a covering annotation in the about me section but try to make it presentable, then lock it.
If any curator doesn't have these basic skills regarding historical profiles, they shouldn't neither have the ability to lock profiles at all.

Ulf, I'm aware of the problem you've had but the way you're presenting is disingenuous.

The profile is locked to prevent people from making exactly the kinds of wild changes you're advocating.

It needs more documentation. The way to contribute that documentation is to start a public discussion. It's not up to a curator to do all the research for every profile. If the profile is poorly documented, it's because you and others on Geni have not been interested in contributing research. Yet.

I am thankful for your comment Justin, and I'm thinking about how to correct a profile that has disingenuous been wrong for a very long time, I'm thinking about Gorm the old, who more correct should be referred to as Gorm the younger, shortened as d.y. in each encyclopedia, on Wikipedia, in any text regarding him this fault is displayed, how do we change that at all?

How do we really advocate a total change in the mind of all established historians who works in this field? How can we make them accept that Gorm's father Knut I (Hardeknut), was adopted by Gorm the old in England, and that somehow, this older Gorm have been mixed up regarding his epithet or nickname "the old", when it should be the young?

How do we convince them that Knut I (Hardeknut) is the same person as Knut, the father of Gorm?

All the sources are the same as they have, but what more does it takes for them to accept them?

We can probably neber prove this connection beyond all doubts, but still, that shouldn't hinder us from using it as a plausible line, that compared to many other profiles here on Geni this far back, contain more than less actual grounds for being displayed, so instead of letting some few "expert" with the attitude that this line so long ago, must be proven beyond every doubt, set the level for acceptance, we should actual benefit for a more flexible interpretation of the sources that combines how the power was distributed among the leaders to their sons, and that the fact that the known exemptions still are counted on one hands five fingers, actually, I can't name anyone else just now except Sverre Sigurdsson who might or not might, have been the illegitimate son of sigurd Munn.

Ulf Ingvar Gote Martinsson, considering the ramifications on lineage, the Sigurn Munn and Sverre Sigurdsson is a mighty big "if"...if you know what I mean...we have a couple of major road blocks such as that...such as Erik Guttormsson etc...this should be a snap for you LOL.

Yes it might be so Andrew, considering that I already have corrected more than 1000 "aristocratic" profiles here on Geni who lived between 700-1900, one more or less, what's the big difference?

@Ulf for sure it doesn't help convince the historians by posting on Geni :-)
Talking to them (such as by knocking on their door and asking for advice) might do a better job.

No, I think that it's easier to quit what I'm doing, maybe instead going to start this, coloring old black and white photos, I showed this one I made earlier for Justin, at least, it's both fun and simpler.

http://media.geni.com/p13/18/fa/29/ff/5344483f67e536bc/elizabeth_li...

Ulf, I think you're asking some very interesting questions.

My experience has been that the experts are almost always university professors. As professors, there is a great deal of pressure on them to do original research and to publish the results in obscure academic journals.

That has some implications here. First and foremost, if one of them thought they could make a case like this, they would have done it already. (Maybe someone has and it just hasn't gained widespread acceptance yet.)

Secondly, you are not going to find an expert publishing something that will result in ridicule from their peers. That means you might find some wild stuff from professors at small, local colleges who don't have much to lose by being bold, but real change in expert opinion usually only comes from professors who teach at prestigious universities and whose opinion carries a lot of weight with their peers.

My personal opinion, after looking at the surviving sources, is that there just isn't enough to justify making these leaps. But even so, it's possible someone, someday will think of a new way of tackling the problem.

For example, I read an article about ancient Irish genealogies a few years ago. The author was able to show that the data was presented in a format that used an older Roman model as a template. That raised some interesting possibilities that the data itself might be a bit older than previously thought.

I don't know how an approach like that could work for saga genealogies, but it shows how coming at the problem from a new perspective can sometimes help change the majority opinion of experts.

Ragnar is my 38 generation great grandfather

Ragnar is my also 36 great grand father.

sorry to kill every1's buzz but isn't pretty much like every white person somehow descended from him?

+1 (assuming he was even a real person)

So you don't think there was a King of Denmark? A ruler of these peoples from Scandinavia was and correct me if I'm wrong but he was real! You tell us all how then we tracked our lineage back to his sons and daughters and wives? I'm not sure but could it be that someone who may have been researching their lineage and thought they were related to him and found out they did something wrong and so they started spreading it around that he wasn't a real person. Now the one in the show isn't real obviously but my line is solid from following English documents to French documents and the people who kept records until record keeping began in my lineage at least! I guess that is from have come from so many people of nobility Y'all can believe what ever you want but I'm solid in my belief that my line is correct for a man named Ragnar Lodbrok Sigurdsson and that there is one thing for sure, and that is that no one can prove it to be wrong! I relish the idea that I have so many relatives out there trying to get our lines straight and am so happy to y'all at least here as family!

There is a great deal of academic debate about whether he was a real person. It's clear the information in the sagas is a composite picture. The events, relationships, and dating cannot all be right. It's possible, also still controversial, that the various legends accumulated around a real man, one who (arguably) would have been the father of the leaders of the Great Heathen Army.

So what do they say about family records and church records? It seems a lot of my Great Grandfathers and Great Grandmothers were from nobility! Im not sure if that is the same for everyone else but the nobles kept pretty good family records!

No church records for old Ragnar, I'm afraid ;)

Theres No Church what so ever.Started in Sweeden 1632.So this debate is just somthting we dont want or? Use your time to somthing better,

Gregg VanSolen Rasor in your line to Ragnar, I would like you to focus attention on publishing the documentation for this person:

Jacob Hearn

At the moment, his Geni profile is blank - not even a birth date, and no cited records.

Let's worry about the rest of the line once you have good documentation for the first few steps. Usually there's plenty of work for all of us long before we get to Ragnar.

Is it me or do some of these responses seem rude? I know that different cultures have different ways of answering questions so if that is the case then forgive me for assuming it to be rude! But if it is meant to be rude then just don't reply because that is what is not need here! I am just trying to get through this like the rest of you without anyone being rude! Thank you for the suggestion about missing information on Jacob Hearn, I will look into it after I get out of the hospital in a couple of weeks!

Yes it's rude, so no, it's not you Gregg VanSolen Rasor. But I did looked through your lines, you might have missed a profile between Jacob Born in Kentucky, USA on 1741 and Andrew, Born in Kentucky, USA on 1813 to Isaac Hearne and Sarah, but I do not know if you have better sources that tells something else?

Isaac Hearne
Born in Rehobeth, Coventry Parish, Maryland, USA on 8 Oct 1770 to Jacob Hearne and Janet Gilderoy. Isaac married Sarah and had a child. He passed away on 1812 in Kentucky, USA.

http://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/isaac-hearne_2747511

Regarding rudeness, I suspect that some people always will act to push someone down when they get a chance, and that's nothing personal, that's just how some people works, some people have even built their whole careers by walking over others corpses and many of them actually gets rewarded, so in a strange way, it's a socially accepted behavior as long as you are on the winning side.

Gregg VanSolen Rasor no intention to be rude. I think various people are trying to point out to you a few things:

- that it is good to have some knowledge of the time in which a person lived before making statements about sources, as you did when you said "So you don't think there was a King of Denmark? A ruler of these peoples from Scandinavia was and correct me if I'm wrong but he was real! You tell us all how then we tracked our lineage back to his sons and daughters and wives?" - the oldest written sources we have talking about Ragnar's family were written down several hundred years after the events were supposed to have happened. Some of them are not consistent with the others; a lot of the time, the information we want just isn't there.

- that when claiming descent from a famous person, as you did when you said "my line is solid from following English documents to French documents and the people who kept records until record keeping began in my lineage at least!", it is good to be able to share documentation on all the links in the chain - we all know that lots of genealogical theories have been shown to be false or based on insufficient evidence, and the purpose of the Geni World Tree is to build a tree based on documented evidence, so the greatest contribution we can make to the tree is to add documentation on why we believe these particular genealogies are true.

In other words - although I think you have been extremely rude and insulting to the expertise of other participants in this discussion, I am, and I think all of us are, trying to politely show how you can contribute constructively to the building of the World Tree.

If I have failed to speak in a manner consistent with common courtesy, I apologize.

Greg, it's always difficult to find a way to tell someone a line is not as solid as they think it is. That's especially true when the person is proud of the line, believes it's solid, and doesn't want to hear that experts disagree.

I hope you'll use this as an opportunity to read more about the problems with early sources in general and Ragnar in particular. Here's a good introductory article that will help you get your bearings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar_Lodbrok#Historicity

Thank you all for your help on this! I have only just stared and still really am not sure exactly what im doing. And i know y'all are trying to give constructive advice and I am thankful! And thank you to Ulf Ingvar Göte Martinsson for the page/tree url to look at because like i said im just getting started and am a rookie and will rely on as much help as i can get!

Thank you Justin Swanström as well for the url!

I have found all i could on Jacob Hearn and i will try and get it over here to Geni from my Ancestry account! It turns out the Hearn line ends and the path to Ragnar went through The Isle of Man and King Olaf! In my search it still leads to Ragnar. Ill keep searching for more documents on as many people as i can but i am still stoked about the whole Viking heritage!