Biblical relations gone?

It appears I lost more than the biblical characters. I lost all of these:

Hiram, King of Tyre is your 100th great grandfather.
Augustus, 1st Roman Emperor is your 69th great grandfather.
Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor is your 60th great grandfather.
Prophet Muhammad of Islam (PBUH) is your 13th cousin 49 times removed.
Aristóbulus, IV, Prince of Judaea is your 69th great uncle.
Theodosius 'the Elder' is your 54th great grandfather.
Antiochus XII Dionysus, King of the Seleucid Empire is your 70th great uncle.
Alyattes, king of Lydia is your 87th great grandfather.
Michelangelo Amerighi, da Caravaggio, Patrizio di Siena is your 20th cousin 13 times removed.

How can this happen? Can it be fixed? Now I am confused about whether it was true in the first place or not. All my more recent royal relations are still intact though.

It means that the path you had to those figures was either incorrect or unproven and has been removed as a result. Geni is a dynamic tree, so some paths -- especially ones deep into the tree -- will change from time to time.

Angela Jossy The problem is that Jason Scott Wills removed the parents of Eudokia Komnene. It was through William of Montpellier's marriage to her that many French, Spanish, British and Scottish royal families are connected to the ancient East.

It is a well established fact that Eudokia was a direct descendant of John II Byzantine Emperor. The only thing historians have ever "argued" about is whether her father was Isaakios Komneno or Alexio. They were both direct descendants of the Komneno Dynasty, and therefore all ancient lineages connected to her are still true and completely in tact. Angela Jossy You are still a direct descendant of the people you listed, and should be proud of your roots.

@Elisha Kayne, there are a lot of profiles for Eudokia on Geni, If they are all the same person, shouldn't they be merged?
.

Eudokia was a popular name during this time period, so before a merge could occur, care should be taken to ensure it's the correct Eudokia. The profile that I'm referencing above can be found here - Eudokia Komnene#

Just so I know what you all refer to:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudokia_Komnene_(daughter_of_Alexio...

And that’s a different person from Eudokia Komnene ...

The daughter of Alexios had two children, names unknown, what became of them unknown.

From a 2018 posting:

EVDOKIA Komnene, daughter of --- ([1160/64]-[Nov 1202/Jun 1204]). The parentage of Evdokia is not known. According to Sturdza[1586], she was the daughter of Alexios Komnenos, son of sébastocrator Andronikos Komnenos (older brother of Emperor Manuel I) but the primary source on which this is based has not yet been identified. Barzos suggests[1587] that she was the daughter of Isaakios Komnenos, son of Emperor Ioannes II, writing that "if Eudokia [K. 143, according to his numbering] were not the daughter of Isaakios [K. 78], then she would be a daughter of Ioannes [K. 128] [son of Andronikos Komnenos sébastocrator]". However, there appear to be too many unknown factors in the genealogy of the Komnenos family for arguments by elimination to be reliable. The Histoire de Montpellier recounts that she travelled to Europe to marry Alfonso II King of Aragon, but found that he was already married to Sancha de Castilla (18 Jan 1174)[1588] when she arrived, that she and her retinue waited for instructions from the emperor at Montpellier, where Guillaume [VIII] proposed marriage to her[1589]. The Annales Pisani (probably written [1182]) records that "l'Imperatore Emanuel" sent his envoys to arrange the betrothal of "una sua nepote…al fratello del Re di Aragona" (Raymond Bérenger III Comte de Provence), the projected marriage aimed at thwarting the influence of the Emperor Friedrich "Barbarossa" through an alliance with Emperor Manuel I, but the betrothal was terminated by Emperor Friedrich as suzerain over the Comté de Provence, the emperor proposing "Goglielmo di Mompellieri" [Guillaume [VIII]] as a suitable alternative[1590]. She became a Benedictine nun at Aniane.

[1586] Sturdza, M. D. (1999) Dictionnaire Historique et Généalogique des Grandes Familles de Grèce, d'Albanie et de Constantinople (2e edition Paris), p. 276.

[1587] Barzos, K. [Genealogy of the Komnenoi], vol. II, p. 14, n. 19 . [J.-C. Chuat]

[1588] Zurita, Ann., 2, 33; Índices/José Guillén Cabañero (1984), tome 1, p. 127. [J.-C. Chuat]

[1589] D'Aigrefeuille Histoire de Montpellier, pp. 67-8.

[1590] Annali Pisani. Continuazione volgara, 1179, pp. 67-8, available at <http://dante.di.unipi.it/ricerca/html/anp.html&gt; (25 Nov 2006).

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/XK...

With a preceding comment:

“ The parentage of Eudokia Komnene, the maternal grandmother of King James I of Aragon, ancestor to many of us, is unknown, except that she is a grand-niece of Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos. Some have proposed that she was the daughter of Isaac Komnenos (son of Emperor John II) and Irene Diplosynadene, but I believe some have pointed out problems with this. Either way, is it safe to presume that Eudokia is either the granddaughter/great-granddaughter of Byzantine Emperor John II Komnenos and Queen Saint Piroska of Hungary?”

This is the same kind of information I was coming across in my research. This is what I meant when I said there was some argument about her father, but no question about her descent from John II. Therefore, as a Komnene, she still retained the lineage of her ancestors.

She was one of the most important links between Western Europe and the East. Therefore, if she is cut from the tree, Europeans lose thousands of ancient relatives. That's why the removal of her parents should have been carefully considered, perhaps a note could have been written on the top of the page, indicating there was a discrepency. That way people could educate themselves on the topic. However, removing them entirely was a mistake that should be corrected soon. Thank you so much for the information, I appreciate it.

As geneologists, we sometimes get lost in the enormous quanitity of people throughout history. It's incredible to discover just how important a single individual can be to us, even those who are more obscure - or who are no longer discussed in High School Social Studies class.

Could add a link within profile to her (great?) grand parents; that would show the house she supposedly belonged to.

A rule of thumb is one gen of “unknown” only when we have confidence / proof of grandparents as shown by property or will evidence (etc) and the parent name is (currently) unproveable. Beyond that there are too many variables to make a good tree link.

Maybe I can build my own tree, and provide the information again. It will take a lot of time, but it might be the only way to move forward. I appreciate the time you took to reply to the issue, and for your insight into the problem. Thank you.

Building your own tree wouldn't do any good on *this* site - duplicate profiles would either be merged or cut adrift, and you'd be right back where you started. The sister site MyHeritage, among others on the Web, allows for individual trees, or you could keep it offline for your own records. (This is generally a good idea anyway, as insurance against somebody accidentally screwing something up - which does happen from time to time.)

Thanks for the tip Private User I just think it's sad. This is the one place on the internet where the world can find their ancestors for free. I already have a MyHeritage account and an Ancestry.com account. I have my tree for my own family. I just feel an obligation for those who are just starting their journey - they won't have a chance to know how deep their roots go.