A widely circulated genealogy from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says Cerdic was a son of Elesa, King of the Saxons, and a descendant of Odin.
That genealogy is now known to be spurious, having been borrowed from the kings of Bernicia to enhance the prestige of the West Saxon dynasty. Cerdic's name is not Saxon. It's a form of the British name Ceretic (Ceredig, Caradoc).
"Kenneth Sisam has shown that this pedigree resulted from a process of elaboration upon a root pedigree borrowed from the kings of Bernicia, and hence prior to Cerdic himself it has no historical basis." (Kenneth Sisam, "Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies", Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 39, pp. 287–348 (1953))
Shouldn't we disconnect Cerdic from Elesa, and add a curator note?
Some things to consider:
1. Cutting a relationship is not the same thing as deleting the profiles. It would still be possible to have a note in Cerdic's profile that the Anglo Saxon Chronicle said he was a son of Elesa, with a link to Elesa's profile.
2. The Scandinavians on Geni are cutting lines this way when they can be shown to be false, but (so far) leaving them when there is no evidence either way.
3. Elesa might have been a real person. Some historians think he was the same person as Elasius, "the chief of that region" who met St. Germanus of Auxerre during Germanus' visit to Britain about 429.
4. Elesa might have been originally an ancestor of the Bernician royal family in north eastern England. The argument is that the Wessex kings grafted their ancestor Cerdic on to Elesa in order to make their ancestry more distinguished.
I agree on not cutting off anything, yet, but some footnote would be done in the profiles. Well, I can live with this one. ; )
Folklore is Ulf Ingvar Göte Martinsson's 42nd great grandfather!
http://www.geni.com/path/Ulf-Martinsson+is+related+to+Folklore?from...