UnitedCardists.com - The forum for Cardistry, Magic, Custom Decks and All Things Playing Cards.

Well, nobody has talked (at least "Vikings" didn't return any 'hits' in this conference, except as being talked about in "Last person to post wins...").

Proven many years ago by my uncle, which is why I am a "Baron of the Magna Charta", because I am a direct descendant of Charlemagne, AKA "Charles the Great" and Charles I of England and his wife Hildegarde, Countess of Linzgau. That is 32 generations back, going through the "High" family (mother) line to the Earl of Montgomery (grandparent of Ancient Planter Thomas Gray of James Citty AKA "Jamestowne" Virginia - here in 1607, also an ancestor).

Going back 30 generations in another branch, you get to "Rollo, Duke of Normandy", and his wife Poppa de Beyeau (is in "Bayeau Taperstry"), because their firstborn son becomes William, Duke of Normandy, later known as "William I - the Conqueror, King of England", also a direct ancestor. That line goes back 69 generations to the 3rd century: Jarls of Upsalla, "the Uplanders", "Danmark" and Kings of Sweden. English = "Earl", Danish = "Jarl".

If you trace another route from Charlemagne back to 72 generations, you arrive in pre-CE (AD) era after passing Roman Senator Gallus Magnus around 500CE and such, also direct ancestors, albeit somewhat diluted at that point.

Rollo's father, also Ragnar's is Ragnvar Eystinesen (spelling diverges wildly - I've seen Eyesteinson, etc) who was himself Jarl of Danmark. His father was Eyestein Ivarsen (again, Iversson, etc) also Jear of the Uplanders. In Danish "sen" = "son" in English, so "Ivarsen" means "Son of Ivar" and "Eystinesen" means "Son of Eystine". He was also known as the first Jarl of More (Mær in Danish).

because I am a direct descendant of Charlemagne

Aren't we all? (Europeans anyway)

http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/50 ... harlemagne

montecarlojoe wrote:

because I am a direct descendant of Charlemagne

Aren't we all? (Europeans anyway)

http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/50 ... harlemagne

I suppose? The one common ancestor nearly everyone worldwide has is Ghengis Khan - although I can't seem to link him in anywhere. The problem is that before the 1850's only "high born" people kept records, and prior to the 1600's nearly everyone used a single name, which makes things really a pain in the posterior. Surnames were only "in vogue" if you were royalty, and even that developed from titles mostly, as in "Poppa de Bayeau", Rollo's wife, the "Duchesse of Normandie". Bayeau is a region in France (well, Normandy, then called "Viking Normandy", later "Haute Normandy" or "High Normandy" in English. Trying to decode things back then are further complicated by the fact that - until very recently - nobody wanted to recognize "bastardly bonds", which were half of the births back in that time period.

I know Bayeux well. They have a famous tapestry (that is actually the worlds largest embroidery and not a tapestry) which Chronicles William I's victory over Harold at Hastings- arrow in the eye and all.

This stuff is hammered into all Brit kids lol

I suppose it all goes to show that the further back you look the less significant your family heritage becomes. Nationality ethnic origin become an accidents of birth - that you can even change if you want. Like which football team you support. In the end we create our own borders. The difference between Us and Them gets real fuzzy the closer you look...

I think it was said best in Bullworth:
"All we need is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction. Everybody just gotta keep f**kin' everybody 'til they're all the same color."

(Yes that was a rambling tangent. But I learned from the best )

Mike Ratledge wrote:Well, nobody has talked (at least "Vikings" didn't return any 'hits' in this conference, except as being talked about in "Last person to post wins...").

Proven many years ago by my uncle, which is why I am a "Baron of the Magna Charta", because I am a direct descendant of Charlemagne, AKA "Charles the Great" and Charles I of England and his wife Hildegarde, Countess of Linzgau. That is 32 generations back, going through the "High" family (mother) line to the Earl of Montgomery (grandparent of Ancient Planter Thomas Gray of James Citty AKA "Jamestowne" Virginia - here in 1607, also an ancestor).

Going back 30 generations in another branch, you get to "Rollo, Duke of Normandy", and his wife Poppa de Beyeau (is in "Bayeau Taperstry"), because their firstborn son becomes William, Duke of Normandy, later known as "William I - the Conqueror, King of England", also a direct ancestor. That line goes back 69 generations to the 3rd century: Jarls of Upsalla, "the Uplanders", "Danmark" and Kings of Sweden. English = "Earl", Danish = "Jarl".

If you trace another route from Charlemagne back to 72 generations, you arrive in pre-CE (AD) era after passing Roman Senator Gallus Magnus around 500CE and such, also direct ancestors, albeit somewhat diluted at that point.

Rollo's father, also Ragnar's is Ragnvar Eystinesen (spelling diverges wildly - I've seen Eyesteinson, etc) who was himself Jarl of Danmark. His father was Eyestein Ivarsen (again, Iversson, etc) also Jear of the Uplanders. In Danish "sen" = "son" in English, so "Ivarsen" means "Son of Ivar" and "Eystinesen" means "Son of Eystine". He was also known as the first Jarl of More (Mær in Danish).

So Mike do we call you Lord Ratledge from here on out?

Talisman wrote:So Mike do we call you Lord Ratledge from here on out?

Jarl Mike will do, obviously.

We should have a thumbs up icon to click on.