Lineage of King Odin to George Washington, 1st President of the United States of America

King Odin?
You know that Odin is one of the old Norse gods?

I knew that would come up Bjorn.
In this Book, aforementioned, there is a descrirtion of this person as not a Myth, but a Human, and the Lineage is described.
Check it out.

Linage with proofs and sources?
That would be fantastic ;-)

In this Book, King Odin is discussed seperately, from the Mythical Odin.
recalling the content of this subject from the Book, he is described as a man of large stature.

Ponder for a moment that these statements were true. Then, consider within the Holy Bible, the scripture of David and Goliath.
Goliath, was a man of large stature, and if I recall, he was of the Palestine peoples.

Within the Holy Kuran (Quran), similar descriptions of a Tribe of peoples (Palestine) were born from a son born aboard Noah`s Ark.
This son is not mentioned in the Holy Bible, King Jame`s verson NIV
These are just thoughts that are very stimulating to me.

This Book, aforementioned, needs close examination by many, as it contains very interesting details.
30 years of Research was spent in it`s production.

I would encourage others to read it, as well as the Scriptures I speak of.

Anyhow, you can read the book online in places like this:

http://www.archive.org/stream/pedigreehistoryo00byuwell#page/n7/mod...
http://www.archive.org/stream/pedigreeandhisto00welliala#page/n7/mo...
http://www.archive.org/stream/pedigreehistoryo00well#page/n7/mode/2up

And most of the profiles is probably also already on Geni, and we mostly take the old lines as they are. Removing them will only result that someone re-add them.

" removing them (profiles) as someone re-adds meaning, you do not find this Source credible?

If you want some really interesting (but I think not creditable) documents about a descent from Odin, check out the Monymusk Text (c1710) and Cromdale Text (1729). They claim to show the descent of the Chiefs of Clan Grant from Odin.

Cromdale Text - http://www.clangrant.org/history/ct.htm

Monymusk Text - http://www.clangrant.org/history/mt.htm

If you're more interested in Odin as a man, check out the theory Thor Heyerdahl was working on before his death. Just a theory, and like many of Heyerdahl's theories not well-received among scholars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl#.22The_Search_for_Odin....

Justin,
Thanks for the Links-will read.
Just curious, any knowledge of why these works have been discredited?

Christopher,

As we were saying on the Virgin Mary thread, scholarly opinion favors the idea that the relationships couldn't possibly be true, so they aren't.

Why couldn't they be true? That would be a very long and detailed answer, but basic idea is they all loosely fall into the type of connection most likely to have been invented by these people at that time.

With Welles and Heyerdahl, the basic problem is that they are theories. They might be good or bad, but if they're not widely accepted by scholars they are just someone's neat idea.

It's basically the same problem we have with the Holy Blood, Holy Grail material, and Laurence Gardner, and the rest - fun stuff, but just a mental game of "what if".

Indeed Justin.
I just skimed the first few paragraphs of one of the links you sent.
Ah History`s Mysteries !!!

I am not a Scholar by any means but I am not so sure this account should be so quickly discredited.
Physical feats of strength can be scoffed at this modern day, however, if one has Faith in the Holy Scriptures, they did occur. Goliath was of a Tribe descibed as worshiping Baal, the false diety. Goliath is probably dismissed by some I am sure, so why not Odin.

We all need to have a healthy dose of skepticism, even when it comes to accepting what scholars tell us ;)

If you ever get a chance, read Barbara Thiering's Jesus the Man. I think it's a good example of my favorite maxim, "There is no theory so silly that some scholar somewhere won't endorse it." ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_the_Man_(book)

Despite his mythical status, Odin/Woden was often believed to be the progenitor of all the British royal houses, and tracing a monarch's lineage back to him was crucial for medieval genealogists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wodin#Royal_genealogy

the germanic peoples had a system of ancestor worship which deified ancestors to godlike status. Odin, Seaxneat, Geat etc probably all had kernals of truth that were exagerated with each retelling

Christopher, there are a couple of things you need to know if you don't allready:

It is the one who submits a claim that bears the burden of proof. And not the other way around, since it would be virtually impossible to prove that someone who is not related, are not.

And it is impossible to argue logically against faith. You say that Jesus walked on water just because the Bible says so, that's faith, and it's impossible for anyone to argue against your beliefs. I cannot say that Jesus didn't walk on water, but neither of us have any proof. You believe that it is so just beacuse it is written in a book, scientific scholars may reject the idea, just because it is impossible to do, but the scholars will allways loose the argument against faith.

Please don't use faith and scriptures as arguments to support a genealogical link, because noone can argue against you.

Christopher, you should also read this book that is writen by Claus Krag, a specialist in Old Norse philology and Norwegian medieval history. Cand.philol.1969, professor of ancient history at the University College of Telemark. His book Ynglingatal and Yngling Saga, a study in historical sources. You can find it here: http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2007100104023 On page 253 there is a summary in english.

Please read the summary carefully and just think logically, and please keep you personal religious beliefs out of the equation.

I have read the first pages of the book linking Odin to George Washington, and Odin is not the son of Fridulf, and on page 7 the book states that Niord is the same person as Yngve, but Yngve is Njords son Frøy and not Njord himself.

So allready on the first few pages there are 2 major wrongs. That doesn't look very good for what is coming later in the book.

Remi,

Already in historic times, some of the (probably original) gods were beginning to be blended.

Yngvi, who was perhaps originally a separate god, was variously identified with Njord's son Frey (Frøy), as Njord's father, and as a son of Odin, or perhaps as Odin himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngvi

People who read Snorri Sturluson and nothing else never get to see the enormous complexity of the problem.

Jakob Grimm reconstructed the original genealogy of the Norse gods as: Tvisco (identical with Búri, who was produced from stone), father of Mannus (Borr), father of Ingvio (Odin - father of the Ingvaeones), father of Nerthus (Njord), father of Fravio (Freyr) and Frauja (Freyja). Odin's brother Vili would have been Istro, and Vé would have been Irmin. (Teutonic Mythology, 348-49).

Modern scholars have endless other ways of fitting together the puzzle.

One thing is clear: as Geoffrey says, to be a king among the northern people you had to be descended from Odin, even if it was just a fiction. And, as Jason says, some of these people could have been men who were later promoted to being gods, or blended with gods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus#Snorri_Sturluson.27s_.22euhe...

I don't dispute that some of these men has lived sometime and has been erected into godlike status and are mythological characters.

But I'm dealing with genealogy, and the form of genealogy that prefer primary sources, and if there is a lack of primary sources, there should be several secondary (tertiary) sources that confirm the same information without using each others information.

Really, I don't care what ever genealogies from that period says, if it is only one source, it's not trustworthy. So, I do not believe that british royal houses can trace their genealogy back to Odin, but back to Rollon (Gange-Rolv), the great grandfather of William the Conqueror shouldn't be a problem, he was born around 860. I do not believe that the norwegians, swedish or danish can trace their ancestry back to Odin either.

We still don't have collaborative sources before year 500 AD on the Scandinavian royalty.

Justin, you as a historian, you know this better than me, how far back in time can you, for certain, trace the Nordic people. And please no mythology, just collaborative history and genealogy, with good sources. It would be interesting to know what you as an american with scandinavian ancestors, have for opinions. It would be interesting to see the differences between the opinions in the new world compared to the old world.

Remi, I don't think you'll find any differences between Americans and Scandinavians. Instead, the differences are between different approaches to the philosophy of knowledge. You and I have had fun with this in the past, but epistemology is not something we want to debate in a genealogy community.

Our real disagreement is about the nature of collaborative genealogy. There are connections on Geni I would not put in my personal database, but I don't object if people on Geni want to accept them. Having ancestors on Geni among the Ice Giants doesn't bother me. I'm not a missionary to try to convert everyone or a policeman to enforce an imaginary law against certain types of evidence.

In fact, I like to understand the arguments for and against. If a "traditional" connection cannot be disproved by something more than an opinion that it couldn't possibly be right, and no academic evidence to show it is wrong, I see no reason to insist that everyone discard it.

My Swedish ancestors are exactly what you'd expect. Most of them go back easily to the 1700s, then the records fail. A few lines go back to, say, the 1200s, then another plateau. And, a tiny little number goes back reliably to the 800s and 900s. These are very famous lines we all share. A few royal lines might go back as far as 500 or 600, but I have my doubts.

So, speaking only for myself, I don't accept any of the modern descents from Odin. But I think the people who do accept those can make some worthwhile arguments. And, I think those arguments are much more interesting than trying to make everyone agree. Instead of generalities, I'd rather be talking about specifics. For example, is there a place in the Ynglingar tree where there might be evidence of invention? Or, why has Cerdic's pedigree been falsified? Nice meaty stuff, not philosophy.

I prefer to think of it like this - I can reliably trace my ancestry to a handful of people in early Britain and Scandinavia who in their own lifetimes believed they were descended from Odin. They had an oral tradition about their ancestry that was later written down. Some of those traditions were probably invented for political reasons. The rest - we don't know. And, I don't think it really matters.

I agree with your last paragraph, those that lived at that time believied, but tht doesn't mean that we have to believe.

I'm not going in to a discussion about what knowlegde is or how it is aquiered either, and I agree about where you and I differ. I allways talk about genealogy in general, and not about Geni or it's software in specific. And I would prefer that my online and offline database were identical. Having an Ice Giant as my ancestor on Geni is upsetting me, (or God, Odin, and/or whatever). I I will try to convert people to do their genealogy, the genealogical way. I'm not a policeman, but I will ask people for their sources for a link, and if it is a tertiary source or worse, I will ask them to sever it.

And there is the practical difference between you an I, here on Geni. You can "accept" doubtful connections on Geni, while I try to have the same standard on Gewni as I do in my private database.

I like to think of this as a learning process for those that I contact, where I see that their information is not good enough. Instead of just changing the info flat out.

Well, Justin, I'm 8 hours before Mountain time, so it's bedtime for me, at 03:30, talk to you later.

Wow, this was way before my time, but we're getting tangled up int he Washington question again. So here's my frank opinion: *it's a crock of bovine fertilizer*, written by a racist crackpot who created his own genealogical society so he could be president of it and give himself airs. Not even Norman blood was good enough, for him, oh no, it had to be pure Norse all the way. Nothing less was WHITE enough for him.

He begins with a vicious slam against Washington Irving's biography because Irving didn't give more than a cursory overview of the descent from William de Herteburne (whom he, wrongly as it turns out, assumed to be one of the despised half-breed Frogs who crawled over with William the Bastard), and he positively *gloats* over how the end of the major Washington line with Eleanor who married Sir William Tempest (here come those inevitable Mallorys again!) meant that de Herteburne "could not possibly" be the direct ancestor of General-President George. (Hello, Mr. Welles? Younger sons? Cadet lines?)

Then he goes on to slap together his own riotously fictional family tree, starting with "Odin, King of Scandinavia" (assumed, courtesy of Snorri Sturleson, to be a deified mortal living in the first century BC) and continuing down through Ragnar Lodbrokk (we know about *him*, don't we?), etc. etc. etc. - until he does a full faceplant by MISidentifying Thorfin of Yorkshire (Domesday landholder circa 1066) with Jarl Thorfinn Sigurdarsson of Orkney. (How this racist jerko would have HATED to learn that Jarl Thorfinn was about 7/8 Celt!)

In any case, this MISidentification blows up everything before it and casts doubt on everything after it.

Then we get to the Conquest and the Reign of Frogs, and he goes into a frothing rage about how there couldn't have been a Norma supplantation of the previous owners, nohow, and how Bardolf of Ravansworth was *not* a dirty Frog but a righteous Norseman, son of Thorfin (who was NOT the Jarl of Orkney, so there, Mr. Welles), and all that was "errors", blah de blah de blah.

Except...Cawley has pretty well proven that Bardolf *was so* a Frog, half-brother to Count Alan "Rufus" de Penthievre (and so were Bodin and Ribaud - did you ever hear of a Saxon named Ribaud? Me neither!).

And so on with bits and patches of possible facts eked out with the vagaries of his imagination, until he has obliterated the existence of William de Herteburne and anyone descending from him. Along the way he makes his own great howlers, like a casual toss-off of a "Roger de Washington" who was "Bishop of Durham" in the 14th century and *whose son was his heir* - earth to Welles, Bishops back then were PAPIST and NOT allowed to have wives or children unless it was before entering the Church and they were widowers. (Not that some of them didn't disobey the rules and keep mistresses on the down-low!) But there is no "Roger de Washington" under any spelling whatsoever on the list of Bishops of Durham, and so much for that.

I don't know where facts start taking the lead again, but it has to be sometime later.

Well, apparently Mr. Welles combined geographic ignorance with genealogic absurdity. Whashton-juxta-Ravensworth is in the North Riding of Yorkshire proper, south and west of Durham - but Washington Old Hall is *north by east* of Durham, a goodly distance from Ravensworth and in a "new county" known as Tyne and Wear, formed from the southern edge of Northumberland and the northern part of the county of Durham. (A large "new town" called, obviously, "Washington", has grown up around it.)

Apparently Wiliam de Herteburn/Wessington's "Wessington" is not, and has nothing to do with, Whashton-juxta-Ravensworth.

(Nor, it would seem, does Wessington in Derbyshire have to do with either of them.)

Whashton, it would seem, was a subtenancy from the Bardolf/FitzHenry/FitzHugh family until about the middle 13th century, when the family gradually reclaimed it. The last recorded subholder was "Robert son and heir of Eudo de Whashton, son of Bonde, a minor".

Meanwhile the Wessingtons went right on holding Wessington, manor house and all, branching out into Lancashire and (back to?) Westmoreland, with one cadet branch gradually moving south to Northamptonshire and the Home Counties.

This Washington line is an old canard, and was roundly rejected a generation ago. Is there a particular reason for dwelling on it now?

Margaret, Dowager Countess of Richmond and Hereford. She just popped up as possibly having married Sir William de Herteburne/Wessington (at least her third marriage).

I've been trying to sort out the tangle since I discovered that, and the bottom line turns out to be (surprise, surprise) that the Whashtons and Washingtons are two different families.

They're not even geographically close, unless you're counting as in horseshoes.

Unfortunately, Tonypandy has a long lead on us....

Ahhh, I knew it had to be something.