Here's how my family descends from Charlemagne. The last people on the list are my maternal grandparents. I think the data is accurate but I look forward to any corrections or comments.UPDATE: I'm almost certainly NOT related to Charlemagne in the lineage shown below. Link #34 is wrong. The father of Ruhama Hill is NOT William Hill of Fairfield, Connecticut but Captain John Hill of Westerley, Rhode Island.
UPDATE (Jan. 2015): An informed read has pointed out that Julianne FiztMaurice (#18) is the daughter of Maurice FitzMaurice and his first wife, Matilda de Predergast, and not his second wife Emmiline de Longspree (#17) as I've shown.
1-Charlemagne (Charles) King of the Franks,
Emperor (2 April 742-28 January 814)
+Hildegarde of Vinzgouw (758-April 783)
2-Louis I (Ludwig) "The Pious" King of France
(16 April 778-20 June 840)
+Ermengarde Princess of Hesbaye (778-3 October 818)
3-Lothair I King of Italy (795-29 September 855)
+Ermengarde of Orleans and Tours
(about 805-20 March 856)
4-Ermengarde (Helletrude) de Lorraine (about 830-about 864)
+Giselbert II von Maasgau (about 815-after 877
5-Reginier (Rainer, Reginar) I de Hainault (about 850-916)
+Hersent de France? (about 865-after 919)
6-Regnier (Rainier, Reginar) II de Hainault Count of Hainault (about 890-after 932)
+Adelaide of Burgundy (about 903-)
7-Amaury de Hainault (about 925-about 983)
+Judith de Camrai (about 931-about 983)
8-William de Bastinbourg (about 965-about 1002)
+Albreda de Nogent Montfort de Esperon (-about 1022)
9-Amauri (Amalric) I de Montfort (993-about 1053)+Bertrude "d’epernon" de Gometz (about 1001-after 1051)
10-Simon de Montfort (about 1026-1087)
+Angus d'Evereux (about 1030-about 1087)
11-Bertrade de Montfort (about 1070-February 1117)
+Foulques (Fulk) IV "le Réchin" Count of Anjou (1043-1109)
12-Foulques (Fulk) of Jerusulem Count of Anjou, King o Jerusalem (1089/92-13 November 1143)
+Ermengarde de la Flèche Erembourg of Maine Countess of Maine (-1126)
13-Geoffrey Plantagenet Count of Anjou (24 August 1113-7 September 1151)+Empress Matilda (Maud) of England (7 February 1102-10 September 1167)
14-Henry II Plantagenet King of England (25 March 1133-8 July 1189)
+Ida de Tosny (about 1158-)
15-William de Longespée Earl of Salisbury (17 August 1152-April 1206)
+Ella of Salisbury Countess (-)
16-Stephen de Longespée Earl of Ulster, Justiciar of Ireland (1216-)
+Emeline Riddlesford (about 1223-1276)
17-Emmeline de Longespee (1250-)
+Baron Offaly Maurice Fitzmaurice (about 1242-1286)
18-Juliane Fitzmaurice of Offaly (between 1249 and 1266-between 1300 and 1309)
+Lord Thomond Thomas de Clare (about 1246-29 August 1287)
19-Matilda (Maude) de Clare (1280-1365)+Lord Robert de Clifford (de Clare) (1 April 1274-24 June 1314 (Battle of Bannockburn))
20-Idoine (Idonea) de Clifford (de Clare) (about 1303-24 August 1365)
+Baron Henry de Percy (Feb. 6, 1300/01-about Feb. 26, 1351.52)
21-Maud de Percy (about 1335-Feb. 18, 1378/79)
+Baron John de Neville 3rd Lord Neville of Raby (1328-17 October 1388)
22-Eleanor de Neville (1360-1441)
+Ralph de Lumley (1360-)
23-Catherine de Lumley (1400-before 1461)
+John Chideocke (Chidlock) (1393-1450)
24-Catherine Chideocke (Chidlock) (1423-10 April 1479)
+John de Arundel VII (7 January 1421-22 November 1473)
25-Margaret de Arundel (about 1464-December 1519)
+Sir William Capel (1428-6 September 1515)
Lord Mayor of London
26-Sir Giles Capel (about 1486 May 1556)[Tournament Helm]
+Isabel Newton (-)
27-Margaret Capel (about 1486-)
+Robert Ward (about 1484-)
28-Thomas Ward (-)
+? Hare (-)
29-Sir Richard Ward (about 1540-January 1615)
+Ann Gunville (Guiville?) (about 1540-after 1552)
30-Andrew Ward (about 1572-23 January 1615)
+? ? (-)
31-Andrew Ward (1597-1659)
+Hesther Sherman (1 April 1606-28 February 1665/6)
32-Ens. William Ward (1631-December 1675)
+Deborah Lockwood (12 October 1636-UNKNOWN)
33-Esther (Hester?) Ward (18 April 1664-18 April 1732)+Eliphalet Hill (about 1663-before 30 January 1695)
34-William Hill (17 November 1692-25 April 1775)
+Abigail Barlow (30 June 1697-16 April 1743)
35-Ruhama (Ruhamah) Hill (-)
+John Belden (-)
36-Mary Belden (22 March 1747/8-5 April 1830)
+Joseph Treen Sr. (16 November 1744-July 1830)
37-William Treen (25 July 1774-26 April 1826)
+Catherine Montross (Montrose) (about 1785-)
38-Ester Treen (1807-~1891)
+Richard Cole (1789-1847)
39-Mary Cole (18 October 1837-9 May 1874)
+John Burns (1818-13 May 1875)
40-Isabelle (Bella) Hooper Burns (18 October 1862-15 August 1923)
+William Findley Docherty (9 March 1852-3 June 1920)
41-William Alvin Doherty (26 December 1878-9 June 1941)
+Ella Jane Foster (7 April 1887-7 February 1961)
[Image Credits:
Charlemange Empire map
Emperor Charlemagne]
That makes us distant cousins, because Catherine Chideocke was my great^15 grandmother.
ReplyDeleteCharlemagne was Charles the Great. Charles Martel was Charles the Hammer, his grandfather.
ReplyDeleteLet me see, you get half your genes from your father and half from you mother. After 40 generations you have 2^(-40) of the genes from the first generation. There's not that many genes in the human genome. So, you probably have zero Charlemagne genes in your genome.
ReplyDeleteIf he's in your family tree, he's still one of your ancestors.
DeleteBuzz says,
ReplyDeleteCharlemagne was Charles the Great. Charles Martel was Charles the Hammer, his grandfather.
I understand your point. The name "Martel" (meaning "hammer") was conferred on the victor of the Battle of Tours.
Charlemagne was not born "Charles the Great" but he probably wasn't known as "Charles Martel" either. (He was named after his grandfather.) The last name "Martel" is just a convenient way for genealogists to identify families at at time when surnames were not popular.
Sorry if this confused anyone.
[martel \mar"tel\ is from F. marteler, fr. martel, marteau, hammer, a dim. fr. L. martulus, marculus, dim. of marcus hammer]
NAL says,
ReplyDeleteLet me see, you get half your genes from your father and half from you mother. After 40 generations you have 2^(-40) of the genes from the first generation. There's not that many genes in the human genome. So, you probably have zero Charlemagne genes in your genome.
That's correct, and it's even correct if you consider all possible alleles—not just the ones found in "genes."
But it does raise an interesting point. What you say is true of each and every one of your ancestors living at the time of Charlemagne. There's an extremely low probability that you got any of your current alleles from any of those ancestors.
Since we clearly must have gotten our alleles from somewhere, how do we resolve this apparent paradox?
athel says,
ReplyDeleteThat makes us distant cousins, because Catherine Chideocke was my great^15 grandmother.
Glad to meat you, "cousin." We ought to have a family reunion where we all get together for a picnic.
Do you know any backyards that can hold close to a million people? :-)
After some more thought, there might have been inbreeding in the generations following Charlemagne. My 2^(-40) number assumed independent genetic coupling. If two tenth generation descendants of Charlemagne had an offspring, that offspring would have the same number of Charlemagne alleles as the parents.
ReplyDeleteThe apparent paradox is resolved by noting that there are 2^(40) ancestors. Half came from 2 ancestors, 1/4 from 4 ancestors, and so forth. So the probability that any particular allele came from a particular ancestor is small, the probability that it came from any ancestor will be sum up to one.
...there might have been inbreeding in the generations following Charlemagne.
ReplyDeleteInbreeding amongst the nobility?! Shocked, shocked I am that you would suggest such a thing! [/sarcasm]
LOL
DeleteWow... This is pretty amazing.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't mind my asking, is there a specific way for a person to determine their link to Charlemagne? I've been tracing my family tree for over a decade, and I still can't find anything but labourers and fishermen with no ties to nobility at all (but I guess it doesn't help that I get stuck at around 1800 in so many branches of my family tree).
Genealogy Girl, keep trying. Eventually you'll find a connection to the known lineages of European nobility and then to Charlemagne.
ReplyDeleteAs long as you have some Europeans in your past it's almost certain that you are a descendant of Charlemagne. Of course, you are also a descendant of everyone else who lived in 800 AD but that's not nearly so interesting. :-)
My Family has a link back to Henry VIII through some of his illegitimate off spring. We can also trace back our line to the Viking Lords of Northumbria.
ReplyDeleteAh, your family line just missed all the fun of THE PERCY - NEVELLE FUED. There is nothing like hotheaded hate and war!
ReplyDeleteSee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy%E2%80%93Neville_feud
A big problem with this descent is that Andrew Ward (1597-1659),
ReplyDeletehas no proven ancestry.
See for example, Robert Charles Anderson, The Great Migration Begins, vol. 3, which mentions proposed parentage for Andrew, but notices that nothing has been proved.
If Andrew Ward had a documented royal descent, it would be included in Gary Roberts, Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants, and also Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry.
@ Imahler,
ReplyDeleteI think there's a general consensus about Andrew Wards parents based on recent research. That's not the link that I'm worried about.
It's the link between Ruhamah Hill and the family in Connecticut that is probably wrong. It's just about certain that her real father is Captain John Hill of Rhode Island.
That means I'm not related to Andrew Ward and not a descendant of Charlemagne through him.
I'm working on two other lineages that relate me to Charlemagne.
What is the specific evidence that proves the parentage of Andrew Ward?
ReplyDeleteAnd where is a published discussion of that evidence?
If there is no good answer to these questions, then there is no reason to believe in the supposed gentry ancestry given for Andrew Ward.
Imahler asks,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the specific evidence that proves the parentage of Andrew Ward?
And where is a published discussion of that evidence?
If there is no good answer to these questions, then there is no reason to believe in the supposed gentry ancestry given for Andrew Ward.
I'm just an amateur looking into my own genealogy. It's difficult to sort fact from fiction since there's a lot of misinformation out there, especially on Ancestry.com.
I try whenever possible to confirm lineages because I know its all too easy to postulate a link to the upper classes in Europe.
In the case of Andrew Ward I relied on information published by The New York Genealogical and Biographical Society. Their information seems quite reliable and their conclusions fit with the facts. There's no question that Andrew Ward, the immigrant, was well-connected with the gentry so it's reasonable that he descends from someone of note.
The speculation is that he is the son of the fourth son of Richard of Homersfield. The fourth son did not inherit much and it's likely that his son, Andrew the immigrant, was not terribly wealthy.
I've lost interest in the Wards since they aren't ancestors of mine. If you are interested in tracking down the truth about Andrew Ward's ancestors I suggest you blog about it and start a discussion.
Here's the problem. Professional genealogists seem reluctant to jump into popular genealogy to correct misconceptions and promote good practice. In some cases this is understandable since they don't want to be giving away information for free. But popular genealogy is becoming increasingly detached from historical facts and the more false information is propagated, the more it becomes accepted as "true."
In the long run, that will hurt the profession so they better act now to do something or they will be (unjustly) marginalized and ignored.
I just noticed this post and I think it's worth a comment:
ReplyDeleteI understand your point. The name "Martel" (meaning "hammer") was conferred on the victor of the Battle of Tours.
Charlemagne was not born "Charles the Great" but he probably wasn't known as "Charles Martel" either. (He was named after his grandfather.) The last name "Martel" is just a convenient way for genealogists to identify families at at time when surnames were not popular.
Sorry if this confused anyone.
Actually, the issue is not understanding a point but correcting an obvious mistake still holding in the initial post (I suppose you are still able to edit it). Nobody in France or Germany would confound Charlemagne/Karl der Grosse (i.e. "Charles the Great") with his grandfather Charles Martel (who obviously got his nickname for having "hammered" the Muslim army at Poitiers (Tours) and ended the Muslim advance in Europe), so the name "Martel" should simply deleted from the line "Charlemagne (Charles) Martel King of the Franks".
The future Roman Emperor Charles the Great got his grandfather's name (Charles) because of the commonplace tradition naming after some close parents (see e.g. his first son, Carloman which had the name of his greatuncle - the brother of Pepin le Bref, but also the name of the younger brother of Charlemagne); there should be no "probably" in the phrase concerning how was known Charles the Great (before becoming Great): it was simply, Charles, the son of Pepin le Bref and Bertrada of Laon.
The surname "Martel" is not the common way to identify its' family; actually the Dynasty founded by him is known as "Carolingian" (keeping in mind that the first Carolingian King of the Franks is neither Charles Martel nor Charlemagne but Pepin le Bref). As King of the Franks, Charlemagne is usually labeled Charles I, not with his nick.
There is no reason to keep the name "Martel" displayed in this post since neither the one and only Charles Martel appears in the genealogy, nor his dynasty has ever been labeled "Martel".
M. Dionis says,
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason to keep the name "Martel" displayed in this post since neither the one and only Charles Martel appears in the genealogy, nor his dynasty has ever been labeled "Martel".
OK. I removed it. It's obviously a major distraction for some people.
I should add that I've retained "Martel" in my database in spite of the fact that I know the correct names and the history. The reason is purely pragmatic; surnames are important in keeping track of genealogy records since one often needs to search one's database for duplicate entries. It's really hard to keep track of people before surnames became common so it's often convenient to attach a pseudonym. I should have corrected this when I posted.
Deleteyou must remeber if it was not for Charlemagne you would not exist it dosent really matter about the genes.
ReplyDeleteVery true.
DeleteLarry,
ReplyDeleteCan I assume that you are related up to Andrew Ward and that you have proven you line to Andrew? I am related to Andrew via Hester and my Sherman line.
My reason for asking is that I would like to tell my grandchildren about the connection to
Charlemagne as I don't, at my age, have time to do the research.
Thanks for your comments.
J
As I noted in the "UPDATE" I am not related to Andrew Ward. I'm pretty sure about the connection of Andrew Ward to Charlemagne.
DeleteDo you have any evidence of "entry 30", I think it is extra/doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteI have Cunningham and Montgomery ancestors who had a great feud going on and, unfortunately, kept killing each other!! Seems that the gentry were allowed to commit murder with little consequence
ReplyDelete