Is royal genealogy on- or off-topic? (Country irrelevant)

Question

Relationship between Baldwin II and IV of the Crusades? asks about determining the relationship of two kings in Jerusalem based on their names.

Is this on - or off-topic for this site?

Answer 1

I don't believe this is on-topic because:

1. It doesn't meet the criteria at https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic:

If your question is about:

• Starting your research or improving your methodology
• Finding a source or understanding how to use it
• Documenting or presenting what you’ve learned
• Breaking down brick-walls in your family tree
• Using technology to support your research

and it is not about:

• Locating identifiable living individuals
• Which genealogy software or website is “the best”
• Developing genealogy software
• Celebrity or biblical genealogy
• General history

then you’re in the right place.

2. There are, and are unlikely to be (other than general history texts) any sources to support answers, one way or the other. (OTOH, reading wikipedia carefully does seem to have provided an answer, albeit not supported by what most of us would have required as sources.)

3. Our scope discussions to date have confirmed that 'general history', and 'Celebrity or biblical genealogy' are out-of-scope -- and this question is about the relationship of 2 medieval kings, based solely on their names/numbers, without any indication that the OP is related to them. (A hard relationship to prove -- however, if all Europeans and their descendants are related to Charlemagne, as is often quoted, perhaps we're all interested in this question, answers supported by sources or not?)

Most seriously -- and fundamentally -- do we want to open the door on this site to questions that can't be answered by (or at least answered supported by) reference to documents/proof? Or is our next step answering questions (via Google/Wikipedia) about the relationship between Noah, Shem and Japheth. (No offence intended to our members who share faiths in which Noah et al are real figures, but I'll always argue that -- on this site -- I need to see sourced evidence).

Answer 2

I would not use one poorly worded question to ban all questions on the subject of royal genealogy.

That particular question is not a good question because it displays poor research effort. The fact that it is about the topic of royal genealogy is neither here nor there.

Whether or not it is easy to research a particular era or place, due to the survival of records, is irrelevant to what questions can be asked. Would it be fair to ban nineteenth century questions from certain parts of Africa where no genealogical records were kept? Of course not. There are many good genealogical sources for very early medeival genealogy. One of my favourites is The Henry Project. Take a look at this site and you will see how genealogical principles can be applied, in the rigorous academic standards of this site, to early (and royal) genealogy.

Furthermore, the study of genealogy or family history does not require one to be researching their own ancestors. People perform research for a variety of reasons, many of which have merit. The genealogy of royal or famous people is one of those. The fact that there might be non-genealogically related aspects to the question does not mean it is not a valid genealogical question to ask here. Why do we allow DNA questions that are really more biological questions than genealogical? Because they are of interest to some (but not all) genealogists. The same is true of royal genealogy.

Finally, I advise you to search the family trees on Ancestry.com or any other major family tree site for royal figures. A search for Henry I of England, for example, returns 264,744 family trees. Just because you may or may not believe these trees, or believe that someone has no right to claim descent from this person, does not mean that there is not a valid reason for someone to ask a question about it on this site.

It's easy to paint with a broad brush and say all questions on royal genealogy are off-topic. Given the small number of questions presently asked on this site, I think a more nuanced approach would be more appropriate.

Answer 3

In this particular example I would personally say definitely not. Had PolyGeo not answered it I would have given into the close votes on it for it being off-topic.

If the questioner had put it in context of I have traced my ancestry back to these two individuals and am trying to resolve a particular issue.. then maybe if they would have better explained their understanding of their relationships vs. "I just do not understand".

Royal / Biblical / Very Famous People Relationships are an academic exercise for Historians, people employed by Royal Families, and religious figures in my opinion and not Family History Genealogists which this forum is oriented to.

This question, as written, probably also would not stand-up to the high reference standards of 'doing your homework first' for the History.SE forum and closed it almost instantly or they might find it fun with it.. it sometimes is a wildcard. My impression is they wouldn't have closed it based on the reference to Wikipedia was only checked.. but it also comes off as almost a 'homework' question as well.

My vote would be to consider "Royal Genealogy" generally off-topic unless put in the specific context of ones own family history.

On Topic Example though: (completely random place, title, etc.. not the best question but you get the point)

I find someone with my gggg-GrandFather's name listed as a Lorde in Scotland, his name was XXXX. His grandson's name was also XXXX. How do I tell which one married the Duchess of YYYY but I have no dates for either?

Answer 4

The question used as an example is a low-quality question; if I were still an ordinary user, I would have voted to close it in any case. The questioner consulted one reference, didn't understand what he read, and made no further research effort.

As Cole Valley Girl says in her answer, the question fails all five of the points in the 'on-topic' test. There is nothing in the question that makes the solved problem a useful case study for someone else studying their own family's history.

I would exclude all Royal genealogy as being functionally equivalent to 'celebrity genealogy'. The only exception I might make is when the question illustrates some problem (finding record groups or evaluating evidence) which is exactly the same as a problem faced by a non-famous person living in the same time and place.

In other words: make a case if you can for what practical genealogical purpose you can accomplish by trying to prove or researching the lines of descent for the Kingdom of Jerusalem which lasted from 1099 until 1291. How many people who visit this site will realistically be able to prove via the GPS that they have a connection to this time and place?

Note that the original question can be summed up as "I can't understand this Wikipedia article". He apparently hasn't consulted the other articles on Wikipedia such as the section about the succession in the main article about the Kingdom of Jerusalem, never mind any other histories or reference works -- and PolyGeo's attempt at an answer does not make reference to ANY other source or reference material -- neither authored material, or primary source material. There is nothing in this question that talks about finding primary source materials or how to evaluate those materials once you have them in hand, two of the critical tasks for anyone involved in doing genealogy.

Does this question ask about:

• How to make a reasonably exhaustive search
• Writing complete and accurate source citations
• Analysis and correlation of the collected information
• Resolution of conflicting evidence
• How to write a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion

Perhaps you can make a weak case for point #3, but when push comes to shove, the example question still boils down to "I read one authored work and I don't understand it" which IMHO does not entail "correlation of collected evidence".

As far as I'm concerned, the whole category of royal genealogy, especially in this time period, is flypaper for low-quality questions and low-quality answers. If people want to make royal genealogy on-topic, I want to see serious questions from people who are making real research effort. Otherwise we are simply being exploited by people too lazy to do their own homework.

Answer 5

Since I answered the question that led to this Q&A I think I should provide my perspective.

Like @vervet I don't think Royal Genealogy should be explicitly off-topic in all cases because there will be MANY descendants of royals alive today, and many of those may be interested in their genealogy even if unaware of and very unlikely to be able to prove any royal ancestors.

Like @ColeValleyGirl I would not like to see a multiplicity of questions like the one which appears to have been asked based only on reading a Wikipedia article.

I answered this question because it looked easy, at a time when we remain short on question numbers at this site, and I thought a quick answer would help its asker to read more critically, and get us another small step towards graduation. If we were out of Beta I think we could be stricter about asking for sources (before answering) to support anything that sounds like speculative rather than serious genealogy.

I think that, at least for now, we may be best to leave questions like this one to be sorted out via downvotes and/or closing as low quality.

Perhaps having just a few questions about early Royal Genealogy and the (absence of) sources that underpin it may even be good to help some users veer away from looking for royal blood and towards more realistic genealogy.