Many genealogists search, sometimes elusively, for a
connection to Royalty in their ancestral lines. I have had a number of
discussions with an experienced and prominent family history expert about
whether, or if I can expect to eventually find someone of Noble birth in one of
my lines. She is quite sure I will find an individual of such “importance” but,
so far, I have not been successful.
A few family researchers very often declare themselves
to be related to Charlemagne (742-814). He seems to be the one individual most mentioned by authors
of family history stories who try to trace their lines back hundreds of years.
I think that is probably due to the fact that he was central to the unification
and organization of much of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It was a
time period when records of the Christian church began to be kept in many
regions. Most of the modern royal families appear to stretch back to
Charlemagne. If you can find a relative in one on these families then somewhere
along the line you must be related to this king.
The singular lack of information on the lives of the
general populace lead people to wish to tie their own history to a particular
royal family, which inevitably leads back to Charlemagne. In places like the
United States, historically without such people, there seems to be a
wishfulness to find connections to heroes, celebrities or famous political
personages. The idea is the same.
It’s intriguing to think that we might have such
people related to us as we plod along in our research of our ancestors. But I
wonder if these are individuals we really want to be associated with.
In past centuries, members of the highest ruling
classes, in many cases those that were part of the nobility or royalty, nations
have been led into conflict, people enslaved and millions killed, all in the
pursuit of some “national” objective.
Since the dawn of civilization after the last major
ice age, the power of certain individuals or groups in societies has come from
their ability to influence economic activities in their local communities. As
these collections of neighbourhoods grew in number and population there
developed overall organizational and/or governing processes to insure the
efficient production and distribution of food. Along with that came the need
for protection from other, similar groups who might be bent on taking that food
or at least controlling the means of its production and distribution. That
would have been particularly true if the marauding groups were unsuccessful in their
own food-producing activities.
In the earliest civilizations, in all parts of the
world, control was largely in the hands of what came to be quasi-religious
minorities who claimed to have the approval of their gods in their undertakings
that would insure bountiful harvests and protection from predators. That
actually worked for thousands of years, when climatic conditions were
favourable for continued and prosperous farming activities. As can be observed
in almost every instance, though, there was a marked decline of such power when
Mother Nature turned against them, through the imposition of droughts, diseases
or famines on the general populace. Those in charge very quickly lost their
political or regal power when people realized their leaders were not able to
forestall the devastating living conditions that accompanied detrimental changes
to their environment.
While religious authority had predominance in most
early societies, political power eventually was transferred to those who could
control economies – initially food production and later trade as well. These
individuals became the heads of the aristocracy. Their influence expanded over
the centuries, with political control passed down through generations of their
families. Over time “noble” families linked up through strategic marriages or
economic unions, firmly establishing a unique ruling class.
In every region and time period where ruling classes
developed, the majority of citizens were subjugated. Those higher up in the
chain gained support by “granting” certain rights or favours to those below
them. This was most rigorously defined in the feudalistic period of the middle
ages. Those at the lowest end of the scale were no more than slaves. At the top
of the pyramids were those called referred to as Royalty. The concept was to
become accepted as the Divine Right of Kings.
 |
Introductory pages to Patriarcha; or the Natural Power of Kings, by Sir Robert Filmer, Baronet, in 1680; book written
as a defense of royalty after the fall of the “Commonwealth” under Oliver
Cromwell and Royal rule had been restored.
There is nothing in the history of these people or
families that is naturally or inherently noble. Their position was achieved
over time through power, politics and the suppression, sometimes by force, of
all other elements of their society.
With regard to our genealogical pursuits, would we
rather find a relationship to people with courage, intellectual prowess or
statesmanship or the brutal suppressors of freedom? Personally, I get a big
kick out of finding blackguards among my ancestors, though they are few, particularly
if they got what was coming to them. It’s fun discovering a story about an
individual who had a conflict with the law or their neighbours. It is even more
satisfying to learn that they may have reformed and moved on to greater
accomplishments.
I have ancestors who were land-owners and people of
influence in their community. What information I have found about them
indicates they were good neighbours who recognized a responsibility to assist
their community. In that respect they were “noble” but in no case have I found
any that were part of the aristocracy.
I am not sure I would want to find out that I was a
descendant of a despot! Or a tyrant whose main claim to fame was the infliction
of great harm on his subordinates as, unfortunately, many in the royal or noble
classes did.
