Brutus "The Trojan", King of Britian - Cutting legendary British kings loose from Adam - where?

Brutus is a late British myth tacked on as son of Silvius from an earlier Roman myth. I would cut there.

Also, Dardanus should not be son of Zerah. That's a 19th century British Israelite myth tacked onto the Bible. I would also cut there. If you want to preserve the integrity of the Ancient Greek tree, Dardanus should be son of Zeus and Electra.

Henn Sarv you're curating all over the place here - what's your opinion? Cut them all, I say (but There Is No Deadline).

@Brutus "The Trojan",King of Britian is listed as my 67th grt grandfather if it is a British myth then i take the relationship as a grain of salt Judy Rice

this is my linkBrutus ap Selys Hen {Fictional} Judy Rice

Private User every reason to be skeptical, and far below this point ... the profile Merion ap Merchion 30 generations closer to you, has no sources cited....

I am always skeptical when ancesters go back that far i say cut them from the tree

I prefere to keep them - without really exact need to remove

All they had legendic but I hope - people have to understand that some of "connection" are documented and real and some based on legends.

I don't think that this link disturb really someone but there is lot of people to like to have those connection on place.

I have similar question in greek trees - I really don't hope that we have to cancel they hope about Olympic ancestors

So my opinion is let them exist and we can mark those person with something like {legendar}

PS! It's really positive when Geni would implement something like "week connection" to prevent automatically appear in relative paths for people who need to look only "ard connections". The different types of parental connections will help several things like "legendar", "adoption" etc.

Henn

We don't have the "tentative" link marker yet, and I don't want to wait for it.... the ones I most want to cut are the ones where we don't even have a good legend to base them on.

If Dardanus son of Zerah is a 19th century myth, it looks like "below the limit" for what we should keep - 19th century English fabrications are just not worthy of the name of "legend".

Henn, your comment on this one is "don't resolve the parent conflict", but it's already been resolved, and I think it's resolved the wrong way - can we cut this?

The Brutus/Silvius link is questionable because (according to Justin) the Brutus legend is quite separate from the Silvius legend, so it looks "tacked on".

Their also seem to bee a pretty big jumb in the timeline. So unless it is possible too link some in between link to Brutus and the so called son here. There is a very big problem. We are talking 300 years here between the two profiles.
This link between the two are very slim. So even if some legend say I think therefore that this problem should be stated very clearly maybee as curator comment. I would myself prefere to cut the link completely. Then maybee write in about bee the legend stated.

I don't worry much about dates in the legends - they seem to be guesses, and inconsistent such. In my opinion they should all be changed to very wide "between these dates" ranges.

Someone should take Geoffrey of Monmouth's text and mark up this sequence of profiles with exactly what the text says about them..... the text seems to be here: http://books.google.se/books?id=FUoMAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

From a brief scan of the Geoffrey text, it also seems that the Geni tree is quite inconsistent with the Geoffrey of Monmouth text. So there's a job to be done here anyway.....

I think that would be a good Ide. who ever get there first.

This is my (current) link to Biblical Adam (97 steps - Ussher would not approve).

Can it be cut?

The knife has fallen.
I wrote an introduction in the profile.
According to Wikipedia, the legendary sources don't agree on who his father was either....

A fun article about Brutus:

The True Origins of the Legend of Brutus of Troy and the London Stone

"Until very recently, the London Stone was set into a shop wall in Cannon Street, nearly opposite the entrance to the railway station, but a few weeks ago it was removed and on 13 May this year [2016] it went on display in the Museum of London.

"The London Stone is widely associated with Brutus of Troy, the subject of my biography Brutus of Troy and the Quest for the Ancestry of the British. The myth of Brutus has no basis in real history but was invented in the Dark Ages to provide Britain with a noble origin linked to the great mythologies of Rome and Greece, and in about 1135 Geoffrey of Monmouth developed his story and asserted that he founded London as Trinovantum, the new Troy in the West. He wrote nothing about the London Stone, and indeed it was to take a long process of myth-making after his death for the stone to become embedded in Brutus’s myth."

Read more: http://www.ancient-origins.net/opinion-guest-authors/true-origins-l...