Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great or Charles I, was the King of the Franks from 768, the King of Italy from 774, and from 800 the first emperor in western Europe since the collapse of the Western Roman Empire three centuries earlier.
He was married to five different women throughout this lifetime. He also produced his fair share of children, which also came as a result to his relations with countless concubines. However, Charlemagne was known as a family man as he kept his family rather close to him. When campaigning in other countries, it was not uncommon to see his sons accompanying him on these journeys.
Charlemagne had twenty children over the course of his life with eight of his ten known wives or concubines. Nonetheless, he only had four legitimate grandsons, the four sons of his third son, Louis. In addition, he had a grandson (Bernard of Italy, only son of his third son, Pippin of Italy), who was born illegitimate but included in the line of inheritance. So, despite twenty children, the claimants to his inheritance were few.
He is also apparently/allegedly my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather. (That's supposed to be 38 greats.) And that comes through the illegitimate-but-included Bernard of Italy line.
I have read that if you trace your genealogy back five hundred years or so (and in this case, 1500), you are more or less related to every person who was alive at that time.
Thirty-five greats. Not exactly six degrees of separation.
One interesting thing is that, as I look back over the list of ancestors and look for more information, I often discover that a number of them have been baptized by the Mormons: Baptism for the dead is best known as a doctrine of the Latter Day Saint movement, which has practiced it since 1840. It is currently practiced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), where it is performed only in dedicated temples, as well as in several other current factions of the movement. Those who practice this rite view baptism as an indispensable requirement to enter the Kingdom of God, and thus practice baptism for the dead to offer it by proxy to those who died without the opportunity to receive it. The LDS Church teaches that those who have died may choose to accept or reject the baptisms done on their behalf. Because they view this as vitally important, they do extensive research into genealogies and have probably the best genealogical database in the world. In recent years, there has been some controversy when non-Mormon descendants expressed anger over the practice. Hence the clarification that those so baptized can choose to reject it.
Not sure how that works. One would assume that a person already dead would know whether or not Mormon baptism was going to be important or not. And if one knew it was important, on what grounds would one reject it? And if one knew it was useless, on what grounds would one accept it.
Mine is not to reason why. Goodness knows it is no more nor less confusing than what many Christians and other groups think.
One interesting thing is that, as I look back over the list of ancestors and look for more information, I often discover that a number of them have been baptized by the Mormons: Baptism for the dead is best known as a doctrine of the Latter Day Saint movement, which has practiced it since 1840. It is currently practiced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), where it is performed only in dedicated temples, as well as in several other current factions of the movement. Those who practice this rite view baptism as an indispensable requirement to enter the Kingdom of God, and thus practice baptism for the dead to offer it by proxy to those who died without the opportunity to receive it. The LDS Church teaches that those who have died may choose to accept or reject the baptisms done on their behalf. Because they view this as vitally important, they do extensive research into genealogies and have probably the best genealogical database in the world. In recent years, there has been some controversy when non-Mormon descendants expressed anger over the practice. Hence the clarification that those so baptized can choose to reject it.
Not sure how that works. One would assume that a person already dead would know whether or not Mormon baptism was going to be important or not. And if one knew it was important, on what grounds would one reject it? And if one knew it was useless, on what grounds would one accept it.
Mine is not to reason why. Goodness knows it is no more nor less confusing than what many Christians and other groups think.
1 comment:
Yes, everyone (in western europe) is related through charlemange.
Post a Comment