Rodulf & Ubba

Okay, I hoped you'd take the hint but I guess I have to be a bit more direct.

This is a thread about Rodulf & Ubba on a genealogy website.

I don't think a bit of digression hurts anyone but we gone pretty far afield and probably lost anyone who is actually interested what can be proved from the primary sources we have.

You're all more than welcome to start another thread and chatter there but further on this particular is going to have to stay more or less on topic.

FWIW, the ISOGG haplotree has removed the designation "I2b1" from their 2017 tree. From a note in the table, it seems to have been a name for the M223 mutation, which is estimated at 17.500 years old - long before we had royalty. See https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-M223/

Many men have had M223 in the intervening years. Some of them may have been royal.
George, you're making statements that are full of emptiness and speculation, and ignore the facts we know.
This contributes nothing to the discussion.

>> Have we not identified Rodulf's Y-Haplo?

No, not even close.

There is no one single haplogroup of royals. The closest is what is called the King's Cluster (DF96) in Haplo R1b. But even that is deceptive because it means only that most of the royal DNA we know (which isn't much) belongs there.

Throughout history rich men have turned themselves into kings. In many periods they were rich because they were successful war leaders. It's as simple as that.

George, a word of caution here. Tone down the rhetoric. Disagreement is fine but when you start making personal attacks you're likely to end up being suspended.

I have to admit that most of what has been posted in this thread has gone over my head but I have a question.

Starting from an assumption that your "conspiracy theory" is true what benefit do you gain from having determined the truth? You have swallowed the redpill but how has that improved your lot compared to those who have swallowed the blue?

>> Justin is trying to protect you guys.

No. It's more radical than that. Seeing the disinformation is not the path to freedom. The path lies in seeing beyond the systems that make the disinformation important, to a deeper reality. The important truths lie elsewhere.

Genealogy is one of the "games" available to us. When we start playing, the game is already in process. Our success depends on how well we follow the rules, arbitrary though they might be. Arguing about the rules is a sideshow.

One of the rules we've collectively agreed is we will accept only the "facts" that can be substantiated by primary sources. Only those facts count as "proved".

We can never know the full facts of anything. Limitations of being human in time and space. The Truth eludes us. So we have we compromised with other players. In the genealogy game reality is consensual, not absolute.

Some of us still want to go outside the rules to other orders of reality. Many of us can acknowledge the existence or possible existence of those other realities, but that game is not this game.

George, you said "Europedia named my bloodline, 'Royal.'".

What you said a few days ago was "The guy at Europedia just added 'Ralph Bassett' as a 'noble' a few weeks ago. He's my 27th great grandpa. "

You didn't give a link to the page, so it's impossible to tell what you're talking about - I suspect it's Eupedia, not Europedia.

There are 63 "Ralph Bassett" on Wikipedia. You may be talking about Ralph Bassett, Justiciar of England - his story is better represented at Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Basset

He was not a "royal".

If you ask questions and don't get an answer, it may be because you haven't provided enough information to figure out what you're talking about.

Eupedia is Maciamo Hay. An excellent researcher and a good site. But, not everything there is the same quality. Eupedia sometimes seems to accept studies that are pure BS. The Habsburg study is my personal pet peeve.

In particular be wary of anything in the discussions. They are full of speculations and bits of data intended to spur further research.

I suspect George is looking at this discussion, where a user is collecting a list of famous I2 carriers. He mentions the Bassetts as one of the "Notable Noble Families".
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-27655.html

If someone says "this haplogroup is royal" or "this haplogroup is noble" they are spouting nonsense. The main haplogroups are many thousands of years old. All of them contain royals and nobles but they all have a majority of men who are neither royal nor noble. None of the royal and noble families have more than 1000 years of proven male-line ancestry, and most have considerably less.

So, there's a huge disconnect associating royal and noble families with a particular group. That doesn't stop some people from thinking somewhere in the data there might be some really original royal family from whom all the "real" royal families are descended. But the data don't support it. There is too much diversity in these line. And somehow it always turn out the people pushing these theories identify the real royal family with their own haplogroup ;)

>> Rollo is supposed to be my 33rd great grandpa. Is that real?

Probably. Maybe not exactly the line shown on Geni but something very much like it.

Statistically, everyone in western Europe is probably a descendant of Rollo. And, leaving aside statistics, Rollo has millions of proven descendants, including all the thousands of Geni users who have any European royal ancestry.

Also, statistically we are probably all descendants of everyone who lived in Rollo's time and who has any descendants living today. I think it's historian Barbara Tuchman who has a very poetic passage where she says if you could see an aerial view of your European ancestors back then, they would be every lord in every castle and every peasant tilling every field.

Something that leads so many people to be impressed with their own royal ancestry is they don't see the bias in the data. Records pertaining to elites are more likely to survive than records pertaining to the common people. What that means in practice is that if you can keep going back through the generations, the common people will begin to drop out because you find nothing. At each generation you will be more likely to find elite (or more elite) ancestors. In the end you have a family that looks like it's royal, even though that's a very minor part of it. There are still all those other ancestors you didn't find.

Quote Justin
"Something that leads so many people to be impressed with their own royal ancestry is they don't see the bias in the data. Records pertaining to elites are more likely to survive than records pertaining to the common people."

They don't need to had been royal, or noble, or priest, they more likely had to pay taxes in order to be easier to find, thus, own land etc, or otherwise be found in court registers, because these kind of registers were often better guarded and following that, more likely to survive the ravages of time. Nevertheless, it is hard for most people to go beyond 1800, even harder to get beyond 1700 and most likely the broad majority will get their blind alleys around the 1600's. Unfortunately, this is also, (what I can see), the blindspot where DNA doesn't help very much to get further back in time, so if the church books were burnt, and the tax lengths also, the hope is pretty much lost when it comes to found ordinary people, unless, they could be found at some old cemeteries.

Very few people have preserved their own bloodline in documents, some might have done some orally preserving, family tales, but much of those stories wouldn't be accepted as true without written documentation and they often doesn't cover more than one or two lines anyway., so of course people who find royal lines are grateful for that, it would be strange otherwise.

Anyway, I have now a full circle that goes back ten generation, that covers approximately 5-600 years more or less, I have to be grateful for that since the majority of them wasn't nobles, criminals, or landowners, just simple peoples. : )

George Lucas Bassett, I don't know where to begin. "String theory a freemason trick"
And, I have read and am familiar with Danaus and Egyptus and all of the Egypt/Greco
myths and legends.
Rome did not create Mohamet, or Islam, the remnant of the Sicarii might have.
As for the Schiff banking dynasty, |I believe that you have them confused with their
cousins the Warburgs, who are those very same DelBanco's of Venice.
As for your claim that the DeBanco's hired the Teutonic Knights during the Fourth Crusade (1202–04), well |I don't see much evidence for that ever happening. The
Teutonic Knights at that time were securely ensconced in Hungary at that time, and
the DelBanco's were not yet the financial giants that they later became in the 15th and 16th centuries. The Fourth Crusade (1202–04) was basically a Franco/Venetian
affair, there might have been Teutonic Knights involved,there were many freelance
mercenaries, but not the order itself.
"the Royals fled to Moscow" (how telling)

George Lucas Bassett, in the future, could you restrain yourself, by making just one, or two points per post, you are difficult to read and respond to when you make so many
at one time. thank you

George, the link you gave, http://www.bassettbranches.org/newsletters/2006/20060219/20060219.s..., is a 2006 newsletter of something called the "Basset family association", seemingly run by Jeffrey Basset.
What does that have to do with Eupedia?

Hang on are you actually quoting a tv show based on a Marvel comic as a source?

Thank you George Lucas Bassett for another interesting post. Unfortunately,
Alberto Rivera, the former Jesuit , was teller of tales, and not a teller of very
credible or even clever tales. (bw, that was an opinion).

Your "black Nobles" of Venice, begins interestingly,

The premise that Europe (and most of the world) is controlled by bankers,
that just happen to be of one particular cultural milieu, is not only not very
original, it's not even seriously disputed anymore. Everyone with any sense
is aware of the Fed, and everything else, etc.

Thank you for not dumping a load on us this time.

Alex Moes, I believe you confused Henrik Palmgren's "Red Ice Creations" with
something that Marvel Comics does, there is no connection.

Henrik Palmgren is an independent researcher, radio host and filmmaker. In 2002, he created redicecreations.com, a news website. In 2006, he launched Red Ice Radio, addressing various alternative topics to the mainstream.Currently, Henrik is based in Gothenburg, Sweden and continues to research and seek answers to questions related to the mysteries of the universe. <redicecreations.com>

http://cadw.gov.wales/daysout/oldbeauprecastle/?lang=en

George Lucas Bassett, that is "your house", yours?

You better get a new roof on it, before the spring rains start,
or you will drown in your sleep

George, you said "Eupedia used that page to make a determination".
You still haven't told us what Eupedia page you're talking about. Thus, it's impossible to have an opinion about what they said until you tell us that.

I feel like I have to dig forever every time I want to figure out what you're actually trying to say....

Thanks William. I dont understand a word of your post but obviously i misunderstood "...the show Archer...".

Wow, this discussion is really hard to follow once all George's posts are gone (including his "goodbye" post, which I saw in the newsfeed but never got to read).
Should we just declare this discussion over and start a new one if we need to talk about Rodulf and Ubba again?

Good idea.

Please, lets get back to the boring old stuff. Alas, we hardly got to know ye.....

Right back at you, Alex Moes

Harald Tveit Alvestrand, you are right about his posts, I would have left them in place

(Rodulf & Ubba, I've heard those names somewhere before...)

Justin Swanström, "Something that leads so many people to be impressed with their own royal ancestry is they don't see the bias in the data. Records pertaining to elites are more likely to survive than records pertaining to the common people."

(good point)

Seems like everyone quit (they ain't troopers)

(I would turn off the lights, if I knew where the switch was)