Thorgils Sprakalägg - Disconnected parents

This is not the only case... unfortunately.
I have been contacting more than one curator from Brazil about other profles where people are disconnecting ancestors (mine ancerstors too).

he's my 29th great grandfather

Well, lack of historian knowledge, thats true. Secondly, just doing this without any discussion shown signs of hubris, that's not good at all.

The line was drawn up by a danish historian, and he did a good work, later some other thought that the chronology didn't hold up, but according to what I can see, it really does. Harald, the father of the mother Tyra, i Geni it says that she was born ca. 972, she could have been born a couple of years earlier, but even with this date it works, if she was around 14-15 years old while giving birth which wouldn't have been unusual at that time, with the son born around 984 and possible died 1009. " Little is recorded about Thorgil in historical texts. Most of what was recorded is in reference to his children", that actually fit someone who didn't had any longer life time to give people any much to write about.

Regarding his father, "Styrbjörn the Strong (Old Norse Styrbjörn Sterki) (died c. 985)", well, he kind of actually fit perfect him too.

"In the 18th century, Danish historian Jacob Langebek proposed that Styrbjörn and Tyra were the parents of Thorkel Sprakalegg, who was father of Ulf the Earl and of Gytha Thorkelsdóttir, wife of Godwin, Earl of Wessex, and thus grandfather of kings Sweyn II of Denmark and Harold Godwinson of England."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrbj%C3%B6rn_the_Strong#Alleged_des...

Saga, Yes, this is most likely due to historical revisionism, or in this case, history adulteration. The reason are often political in the ground and has very little to do with sources or facts or what other earlier historians have ended up with from their research.

It's an agenda we witness here on Geni.

May be Jason Scott Wills can explain why he made all those changes without contacting the curator, making a discussion first or at least write down why?

http://www.friesian.com/history/scandin1.gif

Kings of Scandinavia

A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine.
"From the fury of the Northmen deliver us, O Lord."

This page supplements The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, 588 AD-Present with diagrams of the earliest kings, with some of their legendary and mythic progenitors. When that link is used, a new browser window will open for the page. If one of the windows is reduced in size and positioned conveniently, the diagrams here can be compared with the tables there.

The information here is derived from the Royal Families of Medieval Scandinavia, Flanders, and Kiev by Rupert Alen and Anna Marie Dahlquist [Kings River Publications, Kingsburg, California, 1997], The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens by Mike Ashley [Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, 1998, 1999], the large genealogical chart, Kings & Queens of Europe, compiled by Anne Tauté [University of North Carolina Press, 1989], and Kingdoms of Europe, by Gene Gurney [Crown Publishers, New York, 1982]. These sources are not consistent, and choices and compromises have been made, especially to simply get a coherent picture of some things, which is actually not always possible. Thus, neither of the two sets of dates for Ragnar Lodbrok (750-794 or 860-865), King of Denmark and Sweden, works if he is the Viking chief who sacked Paris in 845 and treated with Charles the Bald. If he was, then, actually, all we have to do is split the difference, more or less!

Royal Families of Medieval Scandinavia, Flanders, and Kiev does not begin very early in the chronology and so avoids some of the issues with the legendary kings. The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens gives a bare genealogy that goes from Halfdan to Helgi to Yrsa to Eystein. (The original, bare genealogy is shown in the table for the Kings of Dublin.) This skips over information such as that Yrsa was both the daughter and the wife of Helgi (or even a woman), conceiving with him the hero Hrolf Kraki, who is not listed in the genealogy at all. This is perhaps the high point of a legendary period that we may be perceiving through the most distorted of lenses, and there are many versions of the story, and of the names, from different, and of course much later, sources. The dates are entirely conjectural and inconsistent between the sources. We suspect that where there is smoke there must be fire, but we are nevertheless very far from a real historical picture of these people.

While writing exists in the Scandinavian countries for the entire period covered below (and eventually across a broad swath of Europe from Britain all the way to the Ukraine), namely the system of Runes, as shown at left, it ends up being of limited value for historical information. Objects and small monuments are inscribed with names and some references to events and transactions, but we do not find great monumental historical inscriptions like that of Ramesses II about the battle of Qadesh or like that of Darius at Behistun about his rise to power, much less texts on practical media that tell us much about ongoing developments. As Christianity crept into the region, bringing the Latin alphabet with it, full texts began to be written, preserving Sagas and instituting chronicles. One gets the impression that Runes were regarded as somewhat more magical than utilitarian, which is pretty much the way they were later remembered. Or the more practical media of utilitarian inscriptions may simply have decayed in the damp climates. Nevertheless, Runic inscriptions continue throughout the Middle Ages in Scandinavia for the traditional epigraphic and magical purposes.

The descent of the earliest kings is reckoned all the way back to Odin (Wotan, Woden -- hence "Wednesday"). This may be a dimly remembered historical person, but the fact that other Germans, like the Saxons who invaded Britain, also reckoned their descent from Odin may indicate that this is a mythic device and that Odin indeed is understood as the Odin, the king of the gods. That full genealogy is not shown here (it is in Ashley, p.209). Instead, I pick it up where the Danish line divides, with one branch picking up kings of Sweden, who otherwise seem to have a separate descent from Odin for earlier kings. These early, mythic kings are the Ynglings, which end in Sweden with Ingjald Illrade. Ingjald is succeeded either by Ivar Vidfamne or Olaf Tretelgia (or Tretelia), who is also said to have fled Sweden and founded the royal line of Norway. Ivar is also reckoned as a king of Denmark, but the coordination between the two lines is not always clear. Much the same can be said for subsequent kings down to Ragnar Lodbrok. Fortunately, the sons of Ragnar are supposed to have divided his inheritance, and this begins to get us on more secure historical ground (which means that the 9th century rather than the 8th century dates for Ragnar are probably more like it). Especially noteworthy is the line of descent that involves rulers of York (Saxon Northumbria; Eboracum in Latin, Eoforwic in Old English, and Jórvik in Norse), the Isle of Man, and Dublin -- note that the genealogy shown here is a bit different from that presented in the separate treatment of Dublin. Thus we are well into the period when Viking raiders are spread all over Western Europe, and Eastern as well (Randver Radbartsson is supposed to have been fathered by a Russian, i.e. a Norseman in Russia, a Varangian). This diagram continues with the Swedish kings, who, however, as described by Alen and Dahlquist, do not necessarily continue the same line of descent. This is a little more organized than we get with Denmark, but it may well indicate that kings are ruling simultaneously and that the legendary genealogy is in fact a mythic construction. Erik I thus may indeed precede Erik II, even though the dates here have him later in the 9th century. With Erik VI, however, we get into more historically secured material, which is where Tauté begins her diagram.

If you pick up genealogies written in the 1700s and 1800s claiming to speak about the 1000s and before, there's frankly a huge amount of bullshit in them. Some of the genealogists of that time were *very* "creative".

On the Geni tree in Scandinavia, we generally want to stick with claims that can be traced back to a specific manuscript of some antiquity (we still represent the Grant line documented by the Monymusk text, but we really prefer more local sources like Snorri's sagas and Flateyarbok).

If you don't know the sources, please be *very* skeptical about adding new stuff.
The project for the sagas is here:

https://www.geni.com/projects/Scandinavian-sagas/18

He´s my 27th grat grandfather. :)

När jag nyss kollade släktskapet till Thorgils Styrbjörnsson visade det ungefär "1st cousin 8 times removed´s sister´s husband´s 16th great grandfather" på pappas sida, men efter en "uppdatering" var det något i stil med "8th uncle´s sister´s husband´s..." på mammas sida. Hur förklaras detta skutt bland släktforskare?

Per Anders Dencker both may be correct. For long paths, Geni's algorithms are a bit random in what they find first.

Or, more likely, they're both unprovable because some profile in the middle doesn't have any sources for the information.

Genealogists look at such long chains one link at a time.

Most historians are convinced that Styrbjörn, actually "Björn", did exist. When later historians have tried to connect parents to Thorgils Sprakalägg, some of them have thought that Styrbjörn would be a good candidate, it's possible he is the only one, and the line here on Geni represented that view.

It is a theoretical possibility that this is true, but most of us know that there isn't any real hard evidence in the sources to actually support it other than it makes a good sense from the fact that his fathers name really was Björn, and he in turned was described in a way that points back to this Styrbjörn, it would have been enough to just add a line or two in his profile that informed all about this, and certainly there wasn't any need for disconnection, and absolutely, not without any discussion about it before.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand, thanks for this explanation. It´s quite a long chain, yes.

Private User <seems like that person you referred to don't care to respond, but its obvious, he must know more than Jacob Langebæk who draw up that previous line, or he might just be some kind of expert in the field of arbitrary decision making. https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Langebek yet another cousin to most of us.

I don't see that there is any ancient source for the parents of Thorgils Sprakalägg. Just 18th century speculation. Is there a real source or should he be on Geni with parents unknown?

Private User I noticed similar problems with other ancestors of mine. There are some administrators taking away some information, parents, breaking lines etc. Then I end up losing ancestors and (distant) relatives.
I have some cousins that are curators at Geni, I use to contact them to correct it.
I have PDF´s showing these changes.
Unfortunately sounds some people want to break lines in purpose.

Thorgils Sprakalägg is my 31st great grandfather.

Calling other curators and descendants of Thorgils Sprakalägg.

Nivea Nunes Dias, Deisi Vaz Pinto, Private User, Private User, Private User

Olhem só isto. Tenho reclamado direto com a Nivea sobre o assunto. percebo que existem administradores que retiram as informações, cortam linhagens etc...
Tenho PDF´s guardados que mostram as alterações.

Thorgils Sprakalägg é ancestral meu, da Nivea e do Sandro porque temos vários ancestrais em comum e estamos ligados na mesma árvore. Das outras pessoas mencionadas não verifiquei.

Thorgils Sprakalägg is your first cousin four times removed's husband's 21st great grandfather.

Continua sendo meu 30th great grandfather.

Olha em "atualizações" que aparece quem fez mudanças, e pergunta diretamente à pessoa o porquê.

@eliane either Throgils Spraklägg was your ancestor or he wasn't.
Either there is documentation to back it up or you don't.
The most likely situation is that he was, and there isn't.

The way we can get to the truth is by looking at the documentation. Please concentrate on that.

Justin Durand No, there aren't any contemporary sources, so you're right, what many historians, genealogists often do is to try to recreate lost lines by pinpointing down the parental candidates, eliminating the impossible ones, lifting forward the plausible ones by laying out the puzzle and then draws conclusions from that. The results can be debated, revised, accepted or dismissed. Some people have done or still do a better work than others and it takes a lot of knowledge and historical insight to be really good at this, regardless whatever, the question is if we accept lines drawn from conclusion or not, and if only half of us do, how to keep them?

Ulf, I think you already know my answer to that ;)

I love those speculations but I don't accept them as documented fact. My desktop program is full of them because I want to remember them. But they don't belong on Geni, except as notes in the About section. Geni is a shared tree. It needs to show what can be proved, not personal opinion.

Justin, you will find those "personal opinion" in DAA, ÄSF, etc, as established built connections between some profiles, done by the leading experts in their fields, built on an objective working method. We have to separate personal opinions from objective ones, as well from the invented creations derived from nationalist or other political agendas. "The Danish historian Jacob Langebek proposed that Styrbjörn and Tyra were the parents of Thorkel Sprakalegg", I can't see this as just a personal opinion, neither as a part of some political agenda, because this solution is in fact the opposite to that, and regarding the credibility, it do fit.

Nevertheless, we should not accept any individual curator driven on by his or hers subjectivity to wildly cut every single band that has no contemporary sources without any mercy or sympathy for the ones who'd created those profiles, curators without good thought, insight or any deeper understanding for how the lines come to be. In most other area whatsoever they would have been degraded without pardon.

Ulf, it's still a personal opinion. I understand the role of experts, certainly, but something very important gets lost if you work this way. Not all experts agree, and the opinions of experts change over time.

Moreover, reputable modern historians do not deal in these kinds of absolutes. A proposed solution is a proposal, not a final answer.

The question you should be asking is not whether something has the endorsement of an expert. Instead, you should be asking if this is really the only way it could have happened. That is, ask yourself whether this proposed link so overwhelmingly likely given the evidence that no other solution even comes close.

This approach is a simplified and colloquial application of the Bayesian analysis that modern historians use to assess probabilities, but it should get the point across.

As for curators cutting lines without discussion, I think we could use more discussion on that point ;)

Discussion is useful, I think, to help users understand what is going on but once you have said there is no contemporary evidence for a line, then there is also usually no meaningful reason for debate about it.

Justin, usually in this case refers to normal practice, normal would have been to put a line or two in the proper profile, this case the son, with a reference that this line represents a plausible line without any real proof in support, ending with a note to the originator of that idea.

As I see it, I have nothing against any curator cutting off obvious fake profiles from known fraudulent pedigrees, or profiles that are obvious wrong or misplaced, I do approve to let them shake the trees now and then to sort out the rotten apples, but I also strongly disproves when they goes too far in this effort to maintain the tree and starts to cut of just about everything that have been built on later conclusions.

I would like that you curators were guided by one and the same common ground regqrding how to view older lines, and whom of you that would be most fitted for different areas of expertise, so that not any bloke granted a purple C in their profile were automatically allowed to dig their nose in anything beyond or above their field of interest or expertise without being questioned.

You have this systematically error, one for all, all for one when it comes to defend each other as curator's, but in the long run, bad decisions also affects yourselves and certainly, at some point you actually have to disagree even if that other one who did it also was one of you, otherwise, you will all just be a sad part of dissimulation.

Ulf, I can agree with a lot of what you say but I also disagree with a lot.

For example, I think it's a best practice to put in a source or an explanation when someone cuts a line. But there's a parallel problem here that should be immediately obvious -- the better someone knows a lines, the less obvious it is that is needs explanation. I don't need to look up whether William the Conqueror is the son of Odin. He's just not. It wouldn't occur to me that I need an explanation ;)

Along the same lines, I think most curators are in fact guided by the same principles about how to to view older lines. There might be minor differences of opinion about individual cases, but as a group we're committed to applying good historical methodology.

If you have a different impression I suspect it might be a combination of this problem and the one above. I often see lines that are absolutely wrong and screaming to be cut. They're still here. I haven't cut them because I haven't yet found the time to look for the sources and write my reasons. That doesn't mean they're good. And it doesn't mean they won't be cut someday.

Finally, when it comes to this idea of yours that curators rush to defend each other, you're just plain wrong. You yourself see curators debating with each other publicly all the time but I think you're not choosing to see the significance of those arguments.

I was called out of my sarcophagus!

Then I will give my opinion!

The issue in this discussion is how changes are made, without notification and sometimes influencing our research.

I agree with both Ulf and Justin.

Like Ulf, I am of the opinion (and always I do) of debating with the profile managers before doing a drastic meditation.

And I also agree with Justin about annotate informations apart and about the work of the researchers! The work is hard and it's necessary to be very well founded.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Ulf Ingvar Göte Martinsson, Justin Swanström and others already know me from other discussions. I have already said (I believe I told Anette Guldager Boye) that it is very difficult for me to investigate data from the Nordic ancestors, being so far away. Information on the Web is not very reliable. So what you can do is check the PDF backups and carefully trace the path to the ancestor in question, as Harald suggested!

My tree has decreased in number of ancestors. From approximately 22 thousand to around 16 thousand. As an example, Harald "Blue Tooth" was once my direct ancestor. Today he is like my first cousin 30 times removed's 1st husband.

I confess that I was very angry with the collapse of the tree! And I started a debate with the Brazilian curators! As I keep all my searches on other systems (sometimes stand alone) I'm not worrying about Geni. Unfortunately! These attitudes discourage people and made me insecure about the Geni system.

Anyway, my opinion is that there should be some notification or debate about some measure that interferes with a whole offspring of millions of people!

Sandro, "Anyway, my opinion is that there should be some notification or debate about some measure that interferes with a whole offspring of millions of people!"

Yes, wouldn't that be fully correct?

So what do we do about these "mute" curators swinging their axes apparently sometimes even blindfolded?

I agree with the most Justin wrote in that first part, but any one who does changes, or any curator, ought at least be a communicative person who can explain what they are doing and why. That should be the priority one criteria in order to actually be a curator.

Ulf.
Exactly. I agree!
Otherwise, you'd better have a plan B!