King Halvdan "The Gray" Sigurdsson - His Parents (for consideration)

King Halvdan "The Gray" Sigurdsson is my 27th great grandfather.

Good mornin relatives! King Halvdan is my blood 36th ggf and in law relationshipis is my 29th ggf's wifes' 2nd ggf. i believe that Sigurd Rise Haraldsson is his father but any additional conversation seems to have been shut down by the curator and/or managers, so that is where the conversation would need to begin.

I would like to know what proof and by whom has been found to assert that he was indeed not the grandson of Harald fairhair… is it cherry-picking that is going on regarding Snorri Sturlussons writings ?

@Guðbjörn Ívar Kjartansson, the manager of the profile of King Halvdan "The Gray" is th curator Remi Tryggve Pedersen and he seems to be rewriting the Saga's in his own desire. I sincerely doubt that His "Highness" Remi Tryggve Pedersen acknowledges that the stories in the book of Landnama and for sure will probably denie the newly discoveries in Newfoundland are based on scientific facts are true, just because they are written in by Icelandic authors. Just by reading through his statement on King Halfdan's profile where Remi states that ..... "Today's historians assume that Snorre's sagas are not historical facts when it comes to the kings living before 11th century, therefore his link to his ancestors has been deleted"

Take notice where Remi writes !!! "historians assume".... If His "Highness", Remi Tryggve Pedersen had a scholarly- or an academic background or slightest professional work ethics,he would submit citations or references to peer-reviewed articles to suport his statement. Instead he submits unfounded assumptions with NO references to sources for the statements he makes in such an unprofessional manner as he does. in fact I call his attitude bullying and am astounded over why Geni allows such unprofessional work practices. And yes Remi, if you read this, do report me - please do and I will then for sure have my opportunity to provide my arguments.

Thank you for your valuable work keeping the world tree factual Remi Trygve Pedersen!

For me, in my opinion, most of this is for entertainment purposes, until it can be verified as actual and historic, which I hope, at some point, these GENI profiles will become historically more accurate. We are all working toward using genetics and the discovery of more historic data to get closer and closer.

Remi Trygve Pedersen I'm not going to argue with you. Historians on Medieval research are to me no more reliable sources than the old academics who did the preliminary research on the manuscripts and other sources. Historians tend to rewrite the History to make a name for themselves. Also historians are absolutely not scientists. And I recall that back in the "old days" here on Geni there was a an agreement to leave the original sources unchanged until science proves otherwise. But note also all the comments or references that have come to light in recent times that are unproven, aka the the hypotheses your historians present in their writings and you do not seem to understand that they are merely working with their own hypotheses, not pure proven facts. To me, this is a professional practice.

You instead, make changes to the profiles on Geni at your own discretion without even bothering to mention the sources you claim to base your changes on. Providing references to authors, book/article or pages seems to be something you do not even grasp that if someone is to take you seriously is mandatory on your behalf. You only mention that "historians assume" something. Do you even understand the meaning of the word "assumption or assume"?. Have you even asked your self or the historians you use for your excuses and you constantly refer to, want you even to quote them in the manner you do? I for one sure wouldn't.

And yes, you are one of the most unprofessional persons I have come across ever.

And then we have it I do not have much to add to what Anette Guldager Boye says in her comment. Fortunately, based on medieval sources, which Remi Trygve Pedersen does not want to acknowledge, scientists and academics are constantly working on proving and disproving what has been written before. But while that work has not been completed, it is, of course, a requirement that we collect and respect the data from the past that are considered sources from the Middle Ages. And how can we research the past if we do what Remi Trygve Pedersen does when he throws out all the clues that are in the sources from the old Manuscripts and thereby tries to hide medieval research data from those who have the ability and skills to research such sources. Thank you Anette for your objective and informative answer.

Remi has again changed the profile and locked it. What sources does he have to make this decision? I want Remi to source credible academic sources and proof that the saga was incorrect. Since he has changed the profile and disconnected the burden of proof is on Remi. Hmmm has this decision anything to do with Remis own private business where he is earning money on his genealogy business? And what credentials does said Remi have as a scholar? What has he published and what academic degrees does he have?

I have been studying the Sámi experiences of racism and otherness in the Nordic countries for quite a few years and I am taking part in one study even now, I am not at all surprised that someone has called a fairly normal relationship between a Sámi woman and a "royal" afterwards - just a fairy tale.

At that time, of course, the Sámi were no less inferior than the other tribes around them, and the Norwegians were not more "royal" then, nor were the Swedes or Finns.

the long history of the Sámi in repatriation and the theft, taxation and separation of their lands from the rest of the surrounding culture is a long subject. Yet it is precisely this kind of reflection in which history is made as fairy tale, that is likely to perpetuate old racial doctrines that still live strong in the Nordic countries and are open to open debate.

After all, many Finns, Swedes and Norwegians have had another family with a Sámi woman in the north, which was known but a taboo. This continued for hundreds of years. The situation and the unspoken things are still so outrageous taboos that it takes a long time to disseminate them. This is not helped by religion either, nor by the feelings of shame that many Sámi still suffer from.

Guðbjörn Ívar Kjartansson totally agree with you here.

I noticed that there are few discussions going on about the same issue.

I posted this today: This is totally absurd. King Halvdan "The Gray" Sigurdsson ALL the lines are cut to his ancestors, based on what?

When you think about how much research, material, articles can be found in sagas, the huge burden of proof shifts to Remi. And what does it say in the profile now? Just a light note that SOME "historians" (Who, where, what, why?)_ assume_ (assume, really?) that ... (without any source).

There have been discussions before and there have been other curators who did not approve Remis thought of cutting lines like that, what have changed? Or has he just cut them without notifying the other curators or Geni community? That conversation has gone unnoticed by me anyway.

If the sagas are not accepted as source of any kind, then there is a huge amount of historical material in Geni that could be lost at the same time.

All the ties to Bible and many other religious texts for example can easily be cut as they are not primary source, but recordings of the memories of others? And instead of listing hard sources and tons of research - just leave slight shy note, that some historians assume that politics has also influenced them, so let's REMOVE all ancestry. If one has an obsession, then this idea is easy to reach into whatever texts; almost any data over 700 years old can be deleted at the same time and for same reasons. Biblical and all the religious or other texts etc.

There must be consistency.

This must be stopped. One person cannot do this kind of "vandalism" here.

No more space should be given to erase history from Nordic countries. As a descendant of the Sámi, Kven people, sagas mean a lot to me in many ways. As a descendant of the Sámi in the recent past, there are unpleasant memories of racialization in recent history.

Massive racial research has been conducted here in the Nordic countries, still happening at the 1970s, Aldur W. Eriksson: Human Adabtability - in addition to the measurements, genealogical studies were also carried out to examine racial purity - the subject has been a silent taboo. Our family also still expect to get back the skulls of ancestors, that were stolen from the graves for shameful racial research not so long ago.

Remi has had obsession towards our famous Sami ancestor Snøfrid Svåsesdotter and her spouse Harald I "Fairhair", king of Norway
for a long time now. I find it very offensive that our ancestors bloodlines connecting to her, are removed just like that, especially when most of Sámi are not known to history books. She is not mentioned just breefly somewhere, but in many different sagas. She is described in both Heimskringla and Ágrip, and she is mentioned in Orkneyinga saga. She is a Sami woman and is according to the sagas, the ancestor of Harald Hardrada. With the exception of Ragnhild the Mighty, she is the only wife of Harald Fairhair mentioned by name outside of Heimskringla. Now by one curator, the whole ancestry is deleted from her to Harald III "Hard ruler", king of Norway Just because obsession of one person. And without anything to back his opinions.

One person without any help from any scholar cannot make moves like that.

Private User Thank you for your input to this discussion! Several years ago, after a whole lot of discussion, there was an agreement as you say to keep in the old registrations but from a research point of view, state if new and confirmed and CITED information came to light. Also name the sources that these new information's contain. It's not enough to throw in the discussion names like Remi Tryggve Pedersen does, that no one has heard of and then he also quotes books that usually is no way to get a hold of to read. Trust me - I for one have googled some of the books he has pointed out and they do not seem to be accessible to the public. He also omits to point out the page numbers that his "alleged" sources contain. And most of the sources he is quoting, if they exist, are written in Norwegian as well (and how many can read Norwegian ?). He seems also in denial of the fact that there exist at least a dozen other genealogical bases that are not in line with what he is claiming to be the "correct" info's.

I'm also seriously considering his intentions, that is, whether he's using his facilities here at Geni for his own self-interest, since he is a representative of two genealogy service company's in Norway. That is, whether he is changing the records of Geni to make people believe that he is the one and nobody else who has the "correct" information's on Nordic genealogy. He seems to be listed as the owner (innehaver) of a officially listed genealogy firm called "Slægt og Genealogy" and is also listed as a "Contact person" at "Slekt og Data Kongsberg" as you can see for your self by viewing this link: https://proff.no/rolle/remi-trygve-pedersen/kongsberg/1221902/

I agree with you, Remi has acted wrongly, he has not started a discussion, he base his opinion on sources that are not cited, but according to him claims that the line is invented, who does that?

Quote exactly what they say, bring up the evidence that they have, if other experts don't agrre, bring them up with names and quotes why they disagree.

In my opinion, Remi has acted wrongfully, he is also biased against this line and have time after time showed this in various threads. In reality, when Harald Fairhair brought Norway under one rule, the chance that the following kings after him in Norway would be related to him actually increases, not the opposite, it's common logic and after a couple of generations, they all would be.

Remi Trygve Pedersen of course I can read Norwegian, how else would I have found you in the company listings? And as for the research of the Viking Age you mention, I point out to you that there are endless new researches done by archaeologists that confirm that the old manuscripts and the oral Sagas, not the modern historians, have been giving the correct information’s on that period. You can shout or argue as you please - but it will not change the reality that these are facts.

You would be surprised if you knew how many people read Old Norse to their advantage and are interested in Gammel Norsk. Then how could you know that your own old mother tongue, Gammel Norsk, is quite different from modern Icelandic just as modern Norwegian is nothing like Gammel Norsk (Old Norse). Besides – the old Manuscript’s have more or less been translated over to English, which is a bit more professional than the Norwegian books you are referring to. And please stop talking down to people like you do in your answer to me. Your attempt to belittle me and my Nation completely failed you.

Some years ago an agreement was reached on how the registrations on Geni would be. You do not respect anything of what was decided. And I stand by what I have said before - there is nothing theoretical or professional about your work and behavior here on Geni. On the contrary, you show a complete disrespect for other members here at Geni and their work (as can be seen in your answer here above). You should read what Ulf Martinson writes here above and try to recall what standards were set on if comments were made on the Geni listings or different information's or sources where available or emerged.

You don't even seem to understand the purpose of the job here at Geni. I don't know why I bother to try to make you understand facts such as if we destroy the investigative value of the records by deleting what others have recorded according to their sources, then how can a credible DNA or other scientific research been carried out or other research threads or leads be tested? Idiomatic practice that you practice Remi and does nothing but harm the remarkable work done here at Geni. And Remi - that really pisses me of. The work here on Geni evolves about genealogy and the origin, not you or other members.

Private User thanks for your input and I don't have anything more to add to what you say cause in a nutshell it's precisely what was agreed upon.

I have just been scanning through this discussion and am amazed at the parallels between my Nordic lines with my Native American lines. Seems like similar tensions between oral tradition and racial issues regarding genealogy. Just an observation from an interested (and invested) bystander as I don't know, but wish I did more to contribute.

I agree with Susanne Floyd - on and off the grid that the parallels and arguments for oral traditions are cogent and should not be brushed aside without further consideration.
If the historians are only as yet "unsure" or "assume", it would be better to at least acknowledge oral traditions which have been replete throughout peoples and their histories for thousands of years. As Seneca, we rely upon oral traditions for our history. Our clan mothers teach the name of each clan member to the next clan mother and so on. Sachems, tribal chiefs or medicine men are designated to pass our history and ancestors down orally. If you have no written language or are forced to "unlearn" your language or culture, you're going to want that oral tradition which has been passed word for word from one generation to the next. Ask any Native American if they trust their tribe's oral tradition or the white missionary's written account of Native Americans; 100% they will reply "our tribe's oral tradition".

Remi wrote
"The latest agreement among the curators and Geni admin is that all profiles considered mythological are not to be linked to living people."

And why shall you alone decide over when a profile is mythological?

The problem seems to be the sagas, the name saga is = släktkrönika = genealogy, not a fantastic story. Many of the kings in the sagas is also mentioned in other contemporary text around Europe, that if anything, should only point in one direction, that they actually existed.

Nevertheless, we still use the word, "sagokungar" for the kings mentioned in the saga's. Unfortunately, it seems that some grown up people belive that this actually means fairytales kings and as a consequence, don't take it serious.

There is also the problem understanding the oral tradition used by skalds, where they used metre and also rhyme to remember stories, but also could just recite names followed by names. It's a long training not suitable for anyone and the best stodd second to the king in social status and any scandinavian king worth his named, had invited skalds, they stayed, lived with them, documented, and passed it over to the next one.

The oral tradition was ongoing for several hundreds of years, before some people took and wrote it down, it's a misconception that it shouldn't be viewed as contemporary.

When it comes to the swedish saga kings, Langfeðgatal describes them correct page 57.
(Norways king on page 55) (Denmarks kings page 56)
http://www.septentrionalia.net/etexts/alfraedi3.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langfe%C3%B0gatal

As I wrote before, read
"When it comes to the swedish saga kings, Langfeðgatal describes them correct page 57.
(Norways king on page 55) (Denmarks kings page 56)."

There is the most correct list of the kings and how they are connected.

The kings are all decendants from Sigurd Ring, the father of Ragnar Lodbroke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurd_Ring

First we had the Scandinavian Sviones, mentioned 100 A.D.They in turned later dived into danes and svear around 400. The danes defeated the Herules in part of Denmark and Skåne, in the Scandinavia there were many petty kings, they controlled places, the boarders between them was not defined as what we today have, they were more floating, constantly changing depending on who controlled that area. The hugh area was sometimes called Reidgotaland, the riding goths land.

It spanned from the black sea, across todays Ukraine, Poland, most of the Baltic states, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Netherland, England, it had many trade centers along the way as well as fixed places controlling routes by sea or rivers, of which many later become villages, town and cities, often but not always planned by danes. One of the earlier kings trying to controll most of it was Ivar Vidfamne.See map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Vidfamne#/media/File:Ivar.png

There is only one family in the vikingage, big enough to take the power from all the rest if the petty kings, the sons of Ragnar, dividing between them Denmark, Sweden, Norway, a project that continued with his children and grandchildren until the states of these 3 kingdoms was established more or less as we see them today. They have acted like todays oligarchs, keept the power within the families by killing or buying off their competitors, and passed in on to their owns offsprings. We have today not only the various sagas describing it, or other contemporary text written by historians or munks, we also have the archeological proof for how this have evolved over the last 1500 years.

By comparing different sources, we can rule out both minor and mayor errors, and we can determine what would be remaining facts. All evidence point in one direction, one family took it all, divided it between them and as a result of this, we have 3 neighbouring countries sharing the same past. That´s why, we can't stare us blind on only one source, as you do Remi, we have to sort out the facts from the fiction, not judge the whole as a fiction just becuase it contains errors.

I'm sorry Remi, you stand alone with you views. We know that Ragnar Lodbrok at some stage have been mixed up with another Ragnar who lived 2-3 generations later, unless the first Ragnar became 90-100 years old, we understand this, and by doing that, we can correct it and still use him in the line, all we have to do is to write a notice about it.

Today we have much better means than the people long before us, to actually looking back on or dealing with past events or situations. The sagas works as guidelines, but it is only when we evaluated them in a wholeness we can sort out and make sence of what's likely true or not.

The chronology can also be corrected in some cases by using other sources than just icelandic sagas, like Adam of Bremen and Saxo Grammaticus, but again only by analyzing them against each other to rule out any bias or actual errors, combined with other sources, like archelogical findings that support one text or content/information over the other. It is a fact that many of the profile you disconnect, instead would be possible to connect to living people of today.

Legendary kings might actual be legendary because of that simple fact, that they existed.